United States v. Malagerio, 49 F.4th 911

DHS obtained an administrative arrest warrant for Paul Malagerio (Canadian national who entered in 2013 without a visa) after a tip and investigation that he was unlawfully present.
Around 7:00 a.m., a team of agents went to his trailer in a trailer park; the park owner allowed agents onto the property; officers were concerned he might have firearms or dangerous animals.
Agents knocked, ordered Malagerio to come out; after ~60–90 seconds he opened the door; agents had weapons drawn and ordered him to exit with hands up; he exited and was handcuffed in an open driveway near his truck.
Officers searched the trailer after alleging verbal consent (Malagerio later signed a written consent form); they found three firearms; Malagerio was indicted under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(5).
At the suppression hearing the district court credited the officers, found no in-home or curtilage seizure, found consent effective and voluntary (or, alternatively, that any error was harmless under good-faith), and denied the motion to suppress.
The Fifth Circuit affirmed: it held the district court’s factual findings were not clearly erroneous, declined to decide whether an administrative warrant permits a home arrest, and upheld that consent to the search was effective and voluntary.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether agents seized Malagerio inside his home or curtilage (triggering heightened Fourth Amendment protection)	Government: Malagerio was seized after exiting into a public area; driveway not curtilage	Malagerio: He was seized in his doorway/home and thus within protected premises	Court: Not seized inside home/curtilage; district court findings plausible and not clearly erroneous; no Fourth Amendment violation on that basis
Whether an administrative arrest warrant authorizes an in-home arrest	Government: Administrative warrants entitle immigration seizures; issue unnecessary here	Malagerio: Administrative warrant did not authorize seizure inside home	Court: Declined to decide the question because it found no in-home seizure
Whether Malagerio gave effective consent to search the trailer	Government: Officers obtained verbal consent and a signed form	Malagerio: He refused and told them to get a warrant	Court: Credited officers; consent was effective (objective-standard applied)
Whether consent was voluntary	Government: Factors (cooperation, demeanor, intelligence) support voluntariness despite custody	Malagerio: Handcuffs, show of force, and custodial status rendered consent involuntary	Court: Malagerio failed to raise voluntariness below (plain-error review); record factors support voluntariness; no plain error

Abel v. United States, 362 U.S. 217 (1960) (admissibility of evidence gathered following home arrest without judicial warrant considered)
Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U.S. 731 (2011) (distinguishing administrative immigration warrants from Fourth Amendment judicial warrants)
City of El Cenizo v. Texas, 890 F.3d 164 (5th Cir. 2018) (immigration officers may seize aliens based on administrative warrants attesting probable cause of removability)
Illinois v. McArthur, 531 U.S. 326 (2001) (person in a doorway is in a public place for arrest-warrant purposes)
United States v. Santana, 427 U.S. 38 (1976) (doorway/public-place arrest doctrine)
United States v. Scroggins, 599 F.3d 433 (5th Cir. 2010) (elements and standard for consent to search)
United States v. Freeman, 482 F.3d 829 (5th Cir. 2007) (six-factor test for voluntariness of consent)
United States v. Stewart, 93 F.3d 189 (5th Cir. 1996) (objective-reasonableness test for scope/effect of consent)
United States v. Melendez-Gonzalez, 727 F.2d 407 (5th Cir. 1984) (later consent cannot validate an earlier illegal search)
Anderson v. City of Bessemer City, 470 U.S. 564 (1985) (appellate deference to district court credibility and factual findings)
Mahler v. Eby, 264 U.S. 32 (1924) (deportation is not a criminal punishment)