997 F.3d 159
4th Cir.2021Background
- DHS Special Agent Thomas Swivel recognized Santos‑Portillo, ran a records check, and learned Santos‑Portillo was a Honduran national previously deported after a Texas felony conviction.
- Swivel and four agents surveilled Santos‑Portillo’s registered address; when he exited his home they confronted and arrested him in a public place without obtaining an administrative arrest warrant.
- After arrest, Santos‑Portillo was fingerprinted, Mirandized, and admitted prior deportation and unlawful reentry; he was prosecuted under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a).
- At the detention hearing, Swivel conceded he did not secure a § 1357(a) administrative arrest warrant; Santos‑Portillo moved to suppress all post‑arrest evidence on that statutory basis.
- The magistrate judge found § 1357(a) applied and the arrest violated its warrant component but recommended denying suppression because the statute does not authorize exclusion and no Fourth Amendment violation occurred; the district court adopted that recommendation.
- The Fourth Circuit affirmed: no statutory or constitutional suppression remedy, and the court declined to create one under its supervisory powers given Congress’s role in prescribing remedies.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence must be suppressed for violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1357(a) | Suppression necessary to give § 1357(a)’s administrative‑warrant requirement effect and deter widespread noncompliance | § 1357(a) contains no suppression remedy; suppression is inappropriate absent constitutional violation or statutory authorization | Held: No suppression — Congress did not provide exclusion and courts should not create one here |
| Whether federal courts may use supervisory authority to craft an exclusionary remedy for statutory violations (McNabb line) | Courts retain inherent supervisory power (McNabb) to exclude evidence to maintain judicial integrity and deter illegal practice | Modern Supreme Court precedent limits judicially created remedies; remedy‑drawing is primarily Congress’s function | Held: Even if authority exists, the court declines to exercise it here; judicial restraint required to avoid overruling Congress |
| Whether the arrest violated the Fourth Amendment or otherwise justified exclusion on constitutional grounds | Suppression unnecessary to vindicate Fourth Amendment because argument focuses on statutory warrant requirement | Government: probable cause existed; no Fourth Amendment violation; arrest in public allowed without a judicial warrant | Held: No Fourth Amendment violation — probable cause and public‑place arrest lawful (Santana) |
| Whether record shows systemic or egregious violations warranting supervisory exclusion | Santos‑Portillo contends agents routinely skip § 1357(a) warrants and thus exclusion needed to deter practice | Government disputes systematic violation; record lacks evidence of widespread or flagrant misconduct in individual cases | Held: Record insufficient to show pervasive or egregious misconduct; suppression unwarranted on deterrence grounds |
Key Cases Cited
- McNabb v. United States, 318 U.S. 332 (1943) (recognized judicial supervisory exclusion for statutory presentment violations to preserve federal trial procedure)
- Sanchez‑Llamas v. Oregon, 548 U.S. 331 (2006) (declined to extend McNabb to treaty violation where connection to evidence gathering was remote)
- Hernandez v. Mesa, 140 S. Ct. 735 (2020) (emphasized limits on judicial creation of remedies; remedial authority lies with Congress)
- Herring v. United States, 555 U.S. 135 (2009) (exclusionary rule is costly and should be a last resort; deterrence focus)
- Davis v. United States, 564 U.S. 229 (2011) (exclusion exacts heavy social costs; limits on remedy for police error)
- United States v. De La Cruz, 835 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2016) (statutory violation untethered to constitutional rights insufficient to justify suppression)
- United States v. Abdi, 463 F.3d 547 (6th Cir. 2006) (no general exclusionary rule for statutory violations)
- Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961) (exclusionary rule required for Fourth Amendment violations)
- United States v. Santana, 427 U.S. 38 (1976) (warrantless public‑place arrests upon probable cause are constitutionally permissible)
- Payner v. United States, 447 U.S. 727 (1980) (exclusion as an evidentiary sanction; supervisory power must weigh costs and benefits)