Pretzantzin v. Holder
736 F.3d 641
| 2d Cir. | 2013Background
- ICE agents conducted a pre-dawn, warrantless entry into Petitioners’ third-floor apartment, rounded up sleeping family members, handcuffed them, and transported them to ICE facilities. Officers did not present a warrant or request consent and did not ask about immigration status before arresting Estanislado Pretzantzin.
- At ICE facilities Petitioners were given Form I-213s (statements in English they scarcely understood), then released and served with Notices to Appear charging removability as Guatemalan nationals who entered without inspection.
- Petitioners moved to suppress all evidence and terminate proceedings, arguing the nighttime, warrantless raid violated the Fourth and Fifth Amendments; the IJ granted suppression and terminated the proceedings as an egregious constitutional violation.
- The Government declined to proffer evidence explaining the raid but claimed independent proof of alienage: Guatemalan birth certificates (obtained from the U.S. Embassy in Guatemala) and Pacheco-Lopez’s 1994 municipal arrest records (showing Guatemala as birthplace). The Government asserted these were obtained using Petitioners’ names alone.
- The BIA vacated the IJ’s decision relying on INS v. Lopez-Mendoza’s statement that identity (the “body”) is never suppressible and treated Petitioners’ birth certificates and arrest records as independent; the Second Circuit vacated the BIA decision and remanded, finding the Government failed to meet its burden to show independence and concluding Lopez-Mendoza is jurisdictional, not an evidentiary rule.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Lopez-Mendoza bars suppression of identity-related evidence obtained after an unlawful arrest | Lopez-Mendoza is not an evidentiary shield; identity evidence obtained by exploitation of illegal conduct is suppressible | Lopez-Mendoza bars suppression of identity evidence (the "body" is never suppressible) | Lopez-Mendoza is jurisdictional (preserves proceedings despite an illegal arrest) and does not categorically immunize identity-related evidence from suppression |
| Whether Petitioners’ Guatemalan birth certificates were independently obtained | Birth certificates were obtained as fruit of the illegal raid (via seized passport/statements); Government offered no proof of independent procurement | Birth certificates were obtained using only Petitioners’ names from the Embassy and thus independent | Government failed to meet its burden to show birth certificates were independently obtained; BIA erred in treating them as independent |
| Whether Pacheco-Lopez’s municipal arrest records were independently obtained | Arrest records were likely obtained via the illegal raid and not shown to be linked to him by name alone | Arrest records pre-existed and were linked by name, so independent | Record lacks proof how those records were procured; BIA erred in finding them independent |
| Remedy / next step | Suppress evidence (including identity-linked documents); reinstate IJ suppression and terminate removals | Proceed based on birth certificates and arrest records as independent evidence | VACATE and REMAND to BIA to decide whether there was an egregious Fourth Amendment violation and whether any alienage evidence is tainted |
Key Cases Cited
- INS v. Lopez-Mendoza, 468 U.S. 1032 (Sup. Ct. 1984) (an unlawful arrest does not by itself invalidate subsequent civil deportation proceedings)
- Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 (Sup. Ct. 1963) (fruit-of-the-poisonous-tree/attenuation framework for suppressibility)
- United States v. Crews, 445 U.S. 463 (Sup. Ct. 1980) (exclusionary rule applies to ‘‘fruits’’ of constitutional violations; independent investigation can render evidence admissible)
- Ker v. Illinois, 119 U.S. 436 (Sup. Ct. 1886) (illegal abduction does not divest tribunal of jurisdiction over defendant)
- Frisbie v. Collins, 342 U.S. 519 (Sup. Ct. 1952) (reaffirming Ker: illegal means of bringing a defendant do not void trial jurisdiction)
- Gerstein v. Pugh, 420 U.S. 103 (Sup. Ct. 1975) (addressing detention and probable-cause hearings in light of illegal arrests)
- Maryland v. King, 569 U.S. 435 (Sup. Ct. 2013) (DNA collection at booking analyzed as identity-related evidence and discussed in relation to booking/search exceptions)