United States v. Pablo-Morales, 3:25-cr-00095

Defendant was arrested by ICE on February 11, 2025, for an immigration violation after ICE learned he had previously been removed from the U.S. and had no record of legal entry.
ICE processed Defendant for removal, serving him with reinstatement of removal paperwork, providing legal resource notifications, obtaining an administrative warrant, and transferring him to an immigration detention facility for repatriation.
On February 25, 2025, ICE referred Defendant for possible federal prosecution; on March 4, 2025, a Prosecution Report was submitted to the U.S. Attorney.
Defendant was indicted for illegal reentry (8 U.S.C. § 1326(a)) on March 11, 2025, and appeared before a magistrate on March 13, 2025—31 days after his initial immigration arrest.
Defendant moved to dismiss, compel discovery, and suppress fingerprint evidence, arguing violations of Rule 5 and the Fourth Amendment due to the delay and government conduct.
The government opposed all motions; oral argument was held; the court denied all of Defendant’s motions.

Issue	Defendant's Argument	Government's Argument	Held
Applicability of Rule 5 after civil immigration arrest	Rule 5 applied due to criminal prosecution intent and delay in presentment	Arrest and detention were civil, not criminal, Rule 5 doesn’t apply	Rule 5 does not apply to civil immigration arrests; no collusion to delay presentment
Fourth Amendment violation for detention delay	Gerstein applies to require prompt probable cause review in immigration	Administrative warrant satisfied legal detention requirements	Civil detention with administrative warrant is lawful; no fourth amendment violation
Motion to Compel Discovery	Government communications are material to defense on true purpose of arrest	Requested materials are internal and not discoverable under Rule 16	Discovery denied; materials are not required for defense and are protected documents
Suppression of fingerprint evidence	Fingerprints were taken for investigatory purpose and should be suppressed	Fingerprints taken for identity confirmation after known ID	Suppression denied; fingerprints lawfully obtained for identity purposes

United States v. Cepeda-Luna, 989 F.2d 353 (9th Cir. 1993) (Rule 5 is inapplicable to civil deportation arrests)
United States v. Pena-Carrillo, 46 F.3d 879 (9th Cir. 1995) (No suppression absent collusion between ICE and prosecutors)
United States v. Sotoj-Lopez, 603 F.2d 789 (9th Cir. 1979) (Rule 5 applies if arrested for both civil and criminal offenses simultaneously)
United States v. Parga-Rosas, 238 F.3d 1209 (9th Cir. 2001) (Fingerprints taken for identity, not investigation, are admissible)
United States v. Garcia-Beltran, 443 F.3d 1126 (9th Cir. 2006) (Fingerprint evidence may be used when identity is already known)