836 F. Supp. 2d 959
D. Ariz.2011Background
- Putative class action against MCSO alleging racial profiling and stops without reasonable suspicion in Maricopa County, tied to 287(g) authority; 287(g) field authority was revoked in 2009 limiting MCSO to enforce only certain immigration or state laws; plaintiffs seek equitable relief (declaratory injunction) and class certification for a Latino-only class; named plaintiffs were stopped in 2007–2008 with varying factual circumstances; court addresses standing, Fourth Amendment stops, state-law issues, and equal protection claims; several factual disputes remain as to the underlying stops; court grants in part and denies in part various motions including class certification; injunctive relief is crafted against detentions based solely on knowledge of unlawful presence; opposition and oral argument occurred in 2011; the court ultimately certifies the class and enjoins certain police practices.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to seek injunctive relief for Fourth Amendment claims | Plaintiffs have ongoing risk of future seizures | Plaintiffs lack ongoing injury post- Lyons | Standing found; injunctive relief for Fourth Amendment claims allowed |
| Whether MCSO stops violated Fourth Amendment standards | Stops were not supported by reasonable suspicion or probable cause | Stops justified by probable cause or reasonable suspicion under state actions | Mixed: Ortega-Melendres: triable; Rodriguezes: partial SJ for underlying claims; Nieto/Meraz: partial SJ denied as to underlying claims; future enforcement actions considered for injunctive relief |
| Authority to enforce federal civil immigration law | MCSO acted under civil immigration authority | No inherent authority to enforce civil immigration law post-287(g) revocation | MCSO cannot detain based on knowledge alone of unlawful presence; cannot enforce civil immigration law; affects injunctive relief |
| Class certification under Rule 23(b)(2) | Policy/ practice affects class; common questions predominate not required | Commonality and typicality insufficient; class overbroad | Class certified for equal protection claim; 23(b)(2) appropriate with tailoring allowed; 4th Amend. class considerations remain subject to trial |
| Relief and scope of injunctive relief | Continued risk of discriminatory policing warrants broad injunctive relief | Targeted relief needed, not sweeping injunction | Partial SJ on some individual claims; broader injunctive relief limited to prohibiting detentions based solely on knowledge of unlawful presence; continue to allow enforcement of valid state/federal criminal laws with reasonable suspicion or probable cause |
Key Cases Cited
- Whren v. U.S., 517 U.S. 806 (U.S. 1996) (probable cause governs initial traffic stops; police ulterior motive does not justify prolonged detention)
- Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1968) (reasonable suspicion allows brief investigatory stops)
- Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U.S. 873 (U.S. 1975) (stops based on immigration status require particularized justification)
- Martinez-Medina v. Holder, 673 F.3d 1029 (9th Cir. 2011) (alien admission of illegal presence alone does not create probable cause for criminal immigration violations)
- Gonzales v. City of Peoria, 722 F.2d 468 (9th Cir. 1983) (presence in country without authorization is civil violation; Fourth Amendment standards apply to enforcement actions)
- U.S. v. Arizona, 641 F.3d 339 (9th Cir. 2011) (state enforcement of immigration law; limits on local police authority to enforce civil immigration provisions)
- Muehler v. Mena, 544 U.S. 93 (U.S. 2005) (detention during a lawful search; applicability to immigration status questions under certain conditions)
- Knotts, 460 U.S. 276 (U.S. 1983) (vehicle movement expectation of privacy; limited investigative steps during stop)
- Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Dev. Corp., 429 U.S. 252 (U.S. 1977) (intangible discriminatory intent requires more than disparate impact to prove equal protection violation)
- Lyons v. City of Los Angeles, 461 U.S. 95 (U.S. 1983) (standing to seek injunction where ongoing harm or policy exists)
- Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 131 S. Ct. 2541 (U.S. 2011) (commonality capable of proving system-wide policy; but 23(b)(2) class mechanics discussed)