United States v. Morales-Lopez
5:25-cr-00094
N.D.N.Y.May 19, 2025Background
- Jonas Morales-Lopez was charged with illegal reentry into the United States under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a).
- On February 28, 2025, after arriving home from work, Morales-Lopez was approached by a Homeland Security agent in his driveway; the encounter was recorded by body cam.
- The initial encounter involved the agent asking for identification; Morales-Lopez attempted to leave, after which the agent physically restrained him and stated he was not free to go.
- Subsequent Border Patrol agents arrived, questioned Morales-Lopez in Spanish, and arrested him after he admitted lacking legal documentation to be in the U.S.
- Morales-Lopez moved to suppress all evidence obtained as a result of the seizure, arguing a Fourth Amendment violation; the government opposed, seeking to admit identity, immigration history, and fingerprints.
- The government conceded it would not introduce statements from the driveway or police station in its case-in-chief.
Issues
| Issue | Morales-Lopez's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was Morales-Lopez seized before physical restraint? | He was seized as soon as the agent blocked his car and approached him. | Encounter was consensual until agent grabbed arm/told not free to leave. | Not seized until physical restraint and statement not free to leave. |
| Was there reasonable suspicion or probable cause for the seizure? | No suspicion existed, so any seizure violated the Fourth Amendment. | Did not focus on suspicion but relied on evidence not used at trial. | Seizure lacked reasonable suspicion or probable cause. |
| Should identity, fingerprints, and immigration history be suppressed? | These should be suppressed as fruits of an illegal seizure; exclusionary rule applies. | Such evidence is not suppressible under Lopez-Mendoza and would serve no deterrent purpose. | Suppression of this evidence denied due to minimal deterrent value. |
| Is the exclusionary rule applicable given claimed egregiousness? | The violation was deliberate or grossly negligent, not isolated. | No egregious or fundamentally unfair conduct; normal law enforcement. | Violation was deliberate/reckless, but exclusionary rule inapplicable on these facts. |
Key Cases Cited
- Florida v. Bostick, 501 U.S. 429 (consensual encounter standard under Fourth Amendment)
- Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (definition of seizure and reasonable suspicion)
- I.N.S. v. Lopez-Mendoza, 468 U.S. 1032 (identity evidence not suppressible as fruit of unlawful arrest)
- Utah v. Strieff, 579 U.S. 232 (limits of the exclusionary rule)
- Brown v. City of Oneonta, 221 F.3d 329 (factors for determining whether a seizure has occurred)