897 F.3d 114
2d Cir.2018Background
- Petitioners Zuniga-Perez and Hernandez-Ocampo (Mexican nationals) were awakened during a nighttime law-enforcement entry into a shared rented room in Galen, NY; police executed a purported "felony search warrant."
- Two Border Patrol agents accompanied New York State Police; Forms I-213 stated officers sought a possible fugitive and that there were "known Hispanic migrants" at the residence.
- Petitioners did not consent, were rounded up, questioned about the fugitive and then asked about immigration status only after officers learned the fugitive was not present; three residents (including petitioners) were arrested for unlawful presence.
- Petitioners moved to suppress Forms I-213 and other evidence, alleging warrantless or overbroad search, lack of consent/exigent circumstances, pretextual use of Border Patrol as "translators," and race-based targeting; they submitted affidavits and requested an evidentiary hearing.
- The IJ denied suppression without a hearing, finding petitioners offered "no evidence" of a constitutional violation; the BIA affirmed, concluding the conduct was not "egregious."
- The Second Circuit reviewed de novo whether petitioners' affidavits, taken as true, established a prima facie case warranting a suppression hearing and held they did.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether petitioners made a prima facie showing entitling them to an evidentiary suppression hearing | Affidavits + Forms I-213 show a pre-dawn, nonconsensual entry, questioning after fugitive not found, Border Patrol presence, and race-based targeting — enough to warrant a hearing | IJ/BIA: affidavits do not allege egregious conduct or racial motivation; exclusionary rule generally inapplicable in removal proceedings | Held: Yes — affidavits, read most favorably, raised sufficient factual questions (egregiousness/racial motivation) to require a hearing |
| Whether the search/entry was lawful (warrant/consent/exigent circumstances) | No warrant shown; no consent; no exigency; fair question whether a warrant existed or whether officers exceeded its scope | Government relied on a "felony search warrant" as justification and on Forms I-213 as reliable record | Held: Material factual disputes about existence/scope of warrant, consent, and exigency require an evidentiary hearing |
| Whether immigration-status questioning and detention were lawful under Muehler and Miranda principles | Questioning occurred after fugitive absent; detention/arming/guarding suggest coercion and custody — Miranda might apply; Muehler limits questioning only when detention not prolonged/coercive | Government contended questioning during a search is permissible and no independent reasonable suspicion required | Held: Whether questioning exceeded Muehler bounds or required Miranda warnings is factual and should be resolved at a hearing |
| Whether the exclusionary rule should apply in removal proceedings for these facts | Petitioners: exclusion appropriate for egregious Fourth Amendment violations (nighttime, nonconsensual entry; racial targeting; show of force) | Government: conduct not egregious; exclusion rule generally inapplicable in civil removal | Held: Because petitioners raised plausible claims of an egregious, race-influenced nighttime entry and coercive conduct, they are entitled to a suppression hearing to determine if exclusion is warranted |
Key Cases Cited
- Cotzojay v. Holder, 725 F.3d 172 (2d Cir. 2013) (nighttime warrantless home entry can be an egregious Fourth Amendment violation; describing factors for suppression-hearing threshold)
- INS v. Lopez-Mendoza, 468 U.S. 1032 (1984) (exclusionary rule generally not applied in deportation proceedings except for egregious constitutional violations)
- Maldonado v. Holder, 763 F.3d 155 (2d Cir. 2014) (affidavit-sufficiency standard for entitlement to an evidentiary hearing; egregiousness threshold)
- Almeida-Amaral v. Gonzales, 461 F.3d 231 (2d Cir. 2006) (framework for exclusion when violations are egregious or evidence unreliability undermines admission)
- Muehler v. Mena, 544 U.S. 93 (2005) (permissibility of questioning about immigration status during execution of a search warrant, subject to limits if detention is prolonged or coercive)
- Brignoni-Ponce v. United States, 422 U.S. 873 (1975) (stopping or detaining persons based solely on Mexican ancestry violates the Fourth Amendment)
- Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573 (1980) (home-entry rules: warrant generally required to enter a dwelling to effect arrest)