United States v. Boutin
269 F. Supp. 3d 24
E.D.N.Y2017Background
- Boutin, a dual citizen of Spain and Panama, was arrested on federal charges (attempted money laundering and theft of public property) and indicted in Oct–Nov 2017.
- Magistrate Judge Reyes ordered release on $100,000 bond with home confinement and location monitoring; the Government initially consented to bond.
- DEA lodged an ICE detainer the day of arraignment; Boutin was transferred to ICE custody and held at Hudson County Jail despite the district court’s release order.
- ICE advanced Boutin’s removal hearing from Dec 13 to Dec 6 on short notice; Boutin did not appear and was ordered removed in absentia; he remained in ICE custody.
- Boutin moved to compel ICE to release him consistent with the magistrate judge’s bond order or, alternatively, to dismiss the indictment with prejudice; the Government opposed and sought dismissal without prejudice or a stay.
- The district court granted Boutin’s motion, ordering the Government to either release him under the previously set bond conditions or have the indictment dismissed with prejudice by a set deadline.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ICE may hold a defendant in immigration custody after a district court orders release under the Bail Reform Act | Government: ICE custody permissible where removal proceedings are ongoing and not a pretext | Boutin: Bail Reform Act controls once federal prosecution invoked; ICE detention undermines court-ordered release | Court: Bail Reform Act controls; ICE custody that thwarts a court release conflicts with federal prosecution and requires Government to choose or indictment be dismissed with prejudice |
| Whether expedited/advanced removal hearing that led to in-absentia removal prejudices criminal prosecution | Govt: Advancement legitimate; both proceedings progressed | Boutin: Sudden advancement deprived him of counsel and due process; prejudiced criminal case | Court: Advancement unexplained and raised serious due-process and prejudice concerns; removal while prosecution pending is prejudicial |
| Whether distinction exists when criminal charges are non-immigration offenses | Govt: Parallel tracks acceptable when interests differ | Boutin: Parallel deportation can frustrate prosecution regardless of underlying charge | Court: No meaningful distinction; criminal prosecution has priority and removal jeopardizes enforcement and judicial resources |
| Whether dismissal should be without prejudice or stayed pending appeal | Govt: Dismiss without prejudice or stay to preserve prosecution options | Boutin: Dismiss with prejudice necessary to force Government’s choice | Court: Denied without-prejudice dismissal and denied stay; dismissal with prejudice required if Government keeps defendant in ICE custody |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Trujillo-Alvarez, 900 F. Supp. 2d 1167 (D. Or. 2012) (district court precedence over concurrent deportation proceedings)
- United States v. Ailon-Ailon, 875 F.3d 1334 (10th Cir. 2017) (ICE should delay removal when criminal prosecution pending)
- United States v. Barrera-Omana, 638 F. Supp. 2d 1108 (D. Minn. 2009) (Executive Branch conflict between prosecution and deportation interests)
- United States v. Besendiz-Guevara, 145 F. Supp. 3d 1128 (M.D. Fla. 2015) (criminal prosecution takes precedence over removal proceedings)