Juan Ramon Matta-Ballesteros v. Gary L. Henman, Warden, United States Penitentiary at Marion, Illinois

FLAUM, Before CUMMINGS and since been convicted of that crime and sen- WILL, years imprisonment. tenced to three Judges, Circuit Senior Judge.* District morning At about 6:00 a.m. on the 5, 1988, Matta,

April accompanied by his FLAUM, Judge. Circuit bodyguards, Teguci- at arrived his home arrival, galpa, Upon Honduras.1 his (“Mat- Juan Ramon Matta-Ballesteros by was surrounded armed of the members ta”), by petitions this Court writ of habeas “Cobras,” Special Troops Honduran or who corpus claiming that the il- accompanied by were at least four United legally kidnapped him from home in States Marshals. He arrested and was him Honduras and tortured before trans- handcuffed, allegedly at the direction of porting him to the United States to face the United A States Marshals. black hood pending charges. trial on criminal Based placed over his head and he was allegations, on these Matta claims that the pushed onto the floor of a car driven United States violated Honduran Con- United States Marshals. stitution, law, international and the due A immediately United States Marshal process clause United States Consti- him drove to a United Air States Force result, tution and as a the United States is approximately base an hour-and-a-half personal jurisdiction without over him. away. ride, During the Matta claims that petition The district court denied his with- severely he was beaten and burned with a facts, hearing out a on basis that the gun”2 “stun at the direction of the United alleged, requested did him not entitle to the States Marshals. he arrived Once petitions relief. Matta us to remand the airport, Matta was flown to the United evidentiary case to the district court for an during flight, He States. claims that this hearing. below, For the reasons set forth again he was once beaten and shocked affirm. we body, including about on his testicles feet, again by United States Marshals. I. FACTS Upon States, his arrival in the United immediately Matta was transferred to Mar- escaped from the United Penitentiary. Approximately ion 24 hours Camp Eglin States Prison Air Force passed apprehen- had from the time of his Base in Florida and fled to Honduras. He subsequently sion. Matta was examined is a Honduran citizen and Hondu- because by physician who found abrasions on his citizens, ras does not extradite he its own head, face, neck, arms, scalp, feet, and believed that he had found a safe haven penis, blistering as well as on his back. from the reach of United States law en- According examining physician, forcement officials. While he was in the injuries these were consistent with those Honduras, allegedly heavily he in- became which could have caused a stun been volved in the narcotics trade and now faces gun. charges criminal in the federal district Arizona, California, courts of Central allegations, Based on these Matta filed a Southern At California. the time filed corpus writ of habeas in the Southern Dis- writ, he was also under indictment in claiming trict of Illinois the United escape the Northern District of Florida for States had acted in of the violation Hondu- pursuant 751(a). Constitution, law, to 18 He U.S.C. ran international and the Will, gun * The Honorable Hubert L. Senior District 2. The stun or "Taser" is non-Iethal device Judge of the United States District Court for the commonly resisting used to subdue individuals Illinois, Division, Northern District of Eastern pulse through arrest. It an electric sends sitting by designation. immobilization, body orientation, causing of the victim dis balance, discovery 1. Since Matta was denied and an evi- loss of and weakness. See dentiary hearing, alleged Zion, we City F.Supp. consider facts Thomas v. (N.D.Ill.1987). pleadings light in the few, and affidavits in the most any, It leaves if marks on determining favorable to him whether to body D. of the victim. Aff. of Donovan. grant the writ. and was re arrested Matta United He demanded Constitution. Based on any mistreatment. sponsible the basis to Honduras back his release record, jurisdiction district court expanded was without alleged result as a mat him as a claims failed prosecute that Matta’s found violations. if the facts law, holding that even due of ter entitled alleged, he was were as Matta writ, faced Matta filed the time he At the court, there sought. he The to the relief of Flor District in the Northern indictment discovery request for fore, Matta’s denied States Pris United escape from the for ida hearing, ruling on the 1971, evidentiary an Base in and Air Force Eglin Camp at on alone, much in the various narcotics affidavits pleadings on and indictments along with dis summary judgment. and southern Matta- in the central charges manner of Ari California, Henman, district of and the 697 of rel. tricts ex Stolar Ballesteros writ, sought he filing the After (S.D.Ill.1988). zona. the dis Since F.Supp. 1040 prevent to injunction preliminary writ, Matta has of the court’s denial trict him transferring from from government Florida, prison in to a transferred been in these dis prosecution face to Marion escape tried, and convicted arraigned, rel. Stolar ex Matta-Ballesteros tricts. 751(a).3 custody. 18 U.S.C. from federal § (S.D.Ill.1988). 1036 Henman, F.Supp. 697 anywhere with charges not face did Matta II. ANALYSIS court district jurisdiction in He was petition. brought his he where grant not to court’s decision The district Penitentiary Marion being held in simply Rule hearing based on evidentiary was an he where jurisdictions transfer pending 2254 Governing Section 8(a) Rules of the injunc preliminary charges. face The did “Rules”) that af- (the which states Cases4 court on district denied tion was of the state transcript and record ter he to establish that Matta failed basis filed, judge the trial are proceedings court and remedy at law failed adequate had no evidentiary hearing is if may an determine harm. Id. irreparable to show dispo- not, needed, if shall “make and injunction, denying preliminary After re- justice shall petition as sition expanded an court ordered district Rules; 8(a) 28 U.S.C. quire.” Rule including affida parties, record it held district court The § any occurrence and petitioner vits from inas a sum- the facts much consider could documents, to other In addition witnesses. motion, any facts reading mary judgment bodyguards from his filed affidavits Matta non-movant, in in favor of dispute in time of his arrest him the with were who the law Matta, applying and then this case govern allegations. The confirming his to those facts. by various United filed affidavits ment is based only appeal claim on Matta’s of Matta’s most denying Marshals to an entitled claims he was he this denial: concerning tor especially those allegations, court. district hearing by the evidentiary contended The United States ture. claim, presents two Matta advance this the To and not government, the Honduran brought § U.S.C. was under trial, 4. This suit court in Florida district 3. Prior custody. Tech- presented provides here relief from state arguments those which similar heard brought decided, un- opinion, published been nically, should have suit and 2255, asking Unit jurisdiction over Matta. for States had was as Matta § United der 28 U.S.C. Matta-Ballesteros, F.Supp. and custody. ed States Sections federal relief from apparently (N.D.Fla.1988). has decision This 2255, materially for the the same Circuit. Counsel appealed to the Eleventh been except indicated analysis, purposes of our argument that us at Matta told oral therefore, purposes of this for the note before a district claims also raised these case, distinguish these stat- between we will That court sitting Circuit. in the Ninth court Hayman, 342 utes. See collaterally es- apparently held (1952), Hill L.Ed. 232 they bringing claims because topped from those litigated by fairly fully district been had Rules. (1962). § See also L.Ed.2d 417 case at in the hand. Keohane, n. First, 739 F.2d 257 that he was court.” Jeter arguments. he asserts (7th Cir.1984); hearing Bergenthal v. evidentiary an because see also entitled to case, i.e., (7th Cir.1972), there unique posture Cady, of his 466 F.2d cert. upon denied, which the was no trial court record Second, of the writ could be based. holding denial is Our Jeter facts, alleges Sain, maintains that the as he on Townsend v. based them, a matter of (1963) entitle him to relief as 319, 83 9 L.Ed.2d 770 law, there are material is- codification at 28 U.S.C. and its fact that must be determined sues of detail the situations where both of which through evidentiary hearing. an We con- evidentiary hearing mandatory. Each in turn. Both claims sider each of these by listed assumes that situation Townsend law, questions of so we review the present dispute. in Two of the material facts are court’s decision de novo. See district pur our listed situations are relevant for Operating v. Colt. Indust. Christianson First, the stated that a hear poses. Court Cir.1989). (7th Corp., 870 F.2d ing mandatory where “the merits of the is dispute were not resolved the factual Evidentiary Hearing A. Denial anof hearing.” court 372 U.S. at state is, dispute, in es Matta’s first contention at 757. The merits of a S.Ct. sence, prior however, only there has been no that where concern material facts. Sec trial, corpus may ond, not required hearing a writ of habeas be where a sense, hearing.5 a Common adequately denied without “the material facts were al dictates that if the facts as developed_” 83 S.Ct. at 757. Id. him leged by applicant do not entitle to Again, material facts must be at issue. relief, applicant may hearing a at which the requirements of Section 2254 echoes the This reason prove those facts is useless. 2254(d)(3), provi Townsend.6 Section ing, by relied on the district which was case, applicable most to this mandates sion 2254(d) court, by is reflected 28 U.S.C. § hearing a when “material facts were not and the decisions of both this Court and adequately developed_” 28 U.S.C. Supreme Court. 2254(d)(1) 2254(d)(3). Similarly, section requires hearing the merits of the a when

The Seventh Circuit has held that “an dispute factual were not resolved earlier. evidentiary hearing necessary when is again, dispute only a Once the “merits” of the facts essential to consideration of the already are concern material facts. Neither Townsend constitutional issue before 2254(d) requires evidentiary argument he 6. Section an hear- 5. To advance this observes any petitions normally brought ing applicant after sen- when the shows of the follow- habeas 8(a), upon ing tencing, circumstances: not before trial. Rule which relied, court assumes that this is the district “(1) dispute the merits of the factual transcript case. It states ... and hearing; "after were not resolved in the State court proceedings record of state court is filed” the "(2) factfinding procedure employed evidentiary hearing judge shall decide if an adequate the State court was not to afford 8(a) necessary. Governing Rule of the Rules hearing; a full and fair “(3) argues, Corpus. Habeas the trial tran- adequate- that the material facts were not grant script is vital to the decision to the writ. ly developed hearing; court at the State Sain, 293, 319, Townsend v. "(4) jurisdiction that the State court lacked 745, 760, (1963), ("[t]he trial 9 L.Ed.2d 770 subject person matter or over indispensable determining whether record is applicant proceeding; in the State court application received a full and fair "(5) the habeas applicant indigent an and that the evidentiary hearing”). court, Matta concludes ... deprivation the State of his constitu- this, repre- that because he never had an eviden- right, appoint counsel to tional failed to indispens- tiary hearing proceeding; at trial and because it is sent him in the State court writ, full, grant "(6) he de- applicant able to the decision to a that the did not receive is, fair, hearing argues, hearing a adequate serves a now. That Matta in the State court petition proceeding; habeas deserves some kind of evidentia- or underlying "(7) ry hearing, during applicant denied whether it is that the was otherwise proceed- during hearing, process criminal trial or the habeas due of law in the State ing.” yet present as he has not dence, had a chance to evi- 2254(d). U.S.C. § he deserves one now. claims entitle any if of Matta’s no determine hearing where a require nor § Matta makes two claims. him to relief. dispute. are in facts material First, violates asserts that his arrest Moreover, Rules Govern under the law, namely the Honduran international judge ... Corpus, “the district ing Habeas extradition treaties to and two Constitution in an variety of measures may employ which the Honduras evidentiary need to avoid effort Second, Matta parties. contends were Allison, 431 U.S. Blackledge v. hearing.” amendment due violated fifth abduction 1621, 1633, L.Ed.2d 136 each in turn. We consider clause. instance, 6(a) requires rule For pro discovery habeas cause for good Law 1. Violations International exist cause cannot where ceedings. Good well established individu It is a basis for alleged provide do not facts standing challenge no violations als have governs expansion 7 which relief. Rule treaties in the of international absence de record, specifically method is a sovereigns involved. protest by the evidentiary hearings. signed to avoid treaty provides where certain “[E]ven rule, advisory com enacting the When particular nationals of a benefits Rule purpose “the 7] mittee noted [of fishing rights is tradi state —such —it dispose of some judge to is to enable ‘any rights arising from tionally held plead dismissed on petitions not habeas are, under provisions international re expense the time and ings, without law, and ... individual those of states evidentiary hearing.” Advis for an quired through the only rights derivative are Rules 7 of the Note to Rule ory Committee ” Lujan ex rel. states.’ United States Moreover, Governing Corpus. Habeas Cir.), (2d cert. F.2d Gengler, 510 hearing is not awhen Rule 8 mandates 2400, 44 denied, judge the trial by section required (1975) (quoting Restatement peti of the disposition “make such shall (Second) Foreign Relations Law of of Finally, require.” justice shall tions as e comment the United States § Governing Habeas Rules 11 of the Rule “designed to (1965)). protect are Treaties Federal courts to follow Corpus allows nations, it is of and sovereign interests during habeas of Civil Procedure Rules to nations determine up to offended they not inconsist proceedings where sovereign interests violation of whether a Here, the rules. dis habeas ent with the requires redress.” occurred procedure for sum court trict followed 1249, 1261(5th Zabaneh, F.2d doing so was not mary judgment Cir.1988). v. Cade also United States See rules inconsistently with the habeas acting (5th Cir.1979); na, F.2d necessary. hearing governing when Davis, 767 F.2d United States judges district rules directs Each of these Cir.1985); (2nd hearing evidence process, expedite the to Cir.1981); (1st 32, 37-38 F.2d Cordero, 668 are no necessary. Where there only when Valot, F.2d issue, with it is consistent material facts Cir.1980). (9th the case without rules to decide these light of this conclude in hearing. We no claim that makes Matta entitled to an evi- Matta was analysis that made offi of Honduras government facts material hearing only where dentiary Indeed, admits that protest. cial notwithstanding unique dispute, are in in his arrest. military cooperated Honduran case. posture of his protests before Instead, asserts that and a in Honduras Embassy the American Applicable Law B. The legislature in the Honduran introduced bill on) show that (which never voted allegations not entitle him do If Matta’s to the abduc objected Honduras people as a matter relief, may rule we to then recog We, The United true. tion. law, allegations to be taking his offi- government as the Honduran to nizes the applicable law examine the government Republic cial of the Respondent Hondu conviction.... himself is not suppressible ras. Were we to conclude that Honduras ‘fruit’ and the illegality of protested Matta’s arrest in the his deprive absence of detention cannot the Govern- word from the ment of the government, opportunity prove Honduran we to guilt his denying sovereignty would be ...” 445 U.S. at of the S.Ct. at 1251. Republic of And v. Pugh, Honduras. Gerstein See Societe Natio held Court, do we nale v. retreat from United States Dist. the estab- “[n]or illegal lished rule that arrest or 96 L.Ed.2d detention (1987)(“each subsequent does not void a conviction.” monopoly gov state has a is, 95 S.Ct. at power borders”). ernmental It within its therefore, inadequate allege, for Matta to protest, Without an official we cannot con more, without that the illegal. arrest was clude that objected Honduras has to Mat- ta’s arrest. Therefore Matta’s claims of To create argument a colorable in the violations of international law do not entitle rule, face of this “excep- relies on an him to relief. tion” to the Ker-Frisbie doctrine carved out the Second Circuit in United States 2. Violation of Matta’s Fourth and Fifth Toscanino, (2d Cir.1974). 500 F.2d 267 Rights Amendment offences, Prior to trial for narcotics Tos- past years, challenged ability For the canino the Su of the district him, preme try consistently contending presence Court has held that the illegally manner in had been brought through which a defendant is obtained torture kidnapping by trial ability does not affect United States. Tos- government prove canino offered to try support of his him. The Ker-Frisbie motion doctrine, pregnant that he and his as wife had this rule has come to be Montevideo, been known, lured from his home in power states that “the of a court to Uruguay There, to a deserted area. try person Tos- impaired for a crime is not claimed, canino he by being was abducted brought fact that he has been within knocked gun, placed unconscious with a jurisdiction court’s reason of a ‘forc car, into a bound and blindfolded and driv- Collins, ible abduction’ ”. Frisbie v. 342 en across the border to Brasilia where he 519, 522, 509, 511, U.S. 72 S.Ct. 96 L.Ed. incessantly was tortured interrogated and (1952) (citing Illinois, 541 Ker v. 119 U.S. days. for seventeen After this ordeal Tos- 436, 225, (1886)). 7 S.Ct. 30 L.Ed. 421 drugged canino was placed and on an While process notions of due have been American flight. commercial Once he ar- expanded Frisbie, since see Rochin v. Cali States, rived in the United he was taken 165, fornia, 205, 342 U.S. 72 S.Ct. 96 L.Ed. custody by into waiting United States law (1952); Mapp Ohio, 643, 183 v. 367 U.S. 81 enforcement officials. 1684, (1961); S.Ct. 6 L.Ed.2d 1081 Wong 471, Sun v. United 371 U.S. 83 Faced with allegations, these the Second 407, (1963), S.Ct. 9 L.Ed.2d 441 the Su process Circuit held that “we view due preme Court consistently has reaffirmed requiring now a court to divest itself of the Ker-Frisbie doctrine. e.g. See I.N.S. v. jurisdiction person over the of a defendant Lopez-Mendoza, 1032, 1039-40, 468 U.S. where it acquired has been as the result of 3479, 3483-84, 104 S.Ct. 82 deliberate, L.Ed.2d 778 government’s unnecessary (1984); Crews, United States 445 U.S. and unreasonable invasion of the accused’s 463, 474, 1244, 1251, 100 S.Ct. 63 L.Ed.2d rights.” constitutional 500 F.2d at 275. In (1980); Powell, 465, 537 Stone v. holding, 428 U.S. so relied on Rochin v. 485, 3037, 3048, 96 S.Ct. 49 California, 165, 205, L.Ed.2d 1067 342 72 U.S. S.Ct. 96 (1976); Pugh, 103, Gerstein v. (1952), 420 U.S. 95 Supreme L.Ed. 183 where the Court 854, (1975). S.Ct. 43 L.Ed.2d applied clause, 54 In process United the due to the “the Crews, States v. recognized that whole course proceedings in order to arrest, illegal more, without has nev they “[a]n ascertain whether offend those canons er been viewed as subsequent a bar to decency express fairness which prosecution, nor as a justice defense to a valid notions of of English-speaking peo-

261 squarely is now before follow Toscanino charged with the those toward even pies Court. 169, this 72 Id. offences.” heinous most omitted). (citations See also 208 S.Ct. is of initially that Toscanino We note 423, Russell, 93 United origins. On its ambiguous constitutional 1637, 366 L.Ed.2d 36 face, rely on the due purports Toscanino (of either the fifth amend- process clause Lujan v. rel. Gen ex amendment). Yet or the fourteenth ment denied, Cir.), 421 (2d cert. F.2d 62 gler, support relied for the Second Circuit 2400, 44 1001, L.Ed.2d 95 S.Ct. U.S. 1684, Ohio, U.S. 81 S.Ct. Mapp v. and nar clarified Circuit the Second (1975), (1961), amendment a fourth 6 L.Ed.2d 1081 case, the court In this Toscanino. rowed exclusionary rule case. an international again with faced once was contention was no but there abduction has process clause been The due said Circuit The Second or terror. from “protect[ pre-trial torture detainee held to ] the de applied where only Toscanino force amounts use of excessive - “torture, brutality, and Connor, prove could punishment.” fendant Graham conduct,” -, n. outrageous 109 S.Ct. U.S. similar (1989) (citing Wolfish, due Bell no violation there 535-39, must 1871- The conduct Id. at clause. (1979)). violation L.Ed.2d Under before the conscience” “shock he was prove could holding, if Matta Id., Rochin (quoting occur. can Califor detainee, then he pre-trial punished as a nia, relief under to some might be entitled (1952)). Matta asserts L.Ed. (although necessar process clause due Gengler. under Toscanino falls by the jurisdiction the divestiture ily squarely never Circuit The Seventh Matta, States). does exception to the the Toscanino faced pre-trial de during his punishment allege In United States doctrine. Ker-Frisbie Instead, he prison. at Marion tention (7th Cir.1976),cert. Marzano, 537 F.2d 257 during the tortured that he was claims denied, of his arrest.7 course expressly (1977), this Court L.Ed.2d involving as Matta’s Claims such follow deciding whether refrained arrest, during how violations constitutional the issue have not faced and we Toscanino the analyzed under ever, properly however, circuits, other Several since. fifth the rather than amendment fourth the While Toscanino. considered have examining a claim of While amendment. exception, adopted this Circuit has Ninth arrest, during force of excessive use 308, Valot, 309 625 F.2d v. States United recently held Supreme Court Eleventh Cir.1980), Fifth and the (9th pro Amendment the Fourth “[bjecause v. it. States rejected United have Circuits constitu source of explicit textual vides an Cir.1984), (11th 1508, 1531 Darby, 744 F.2d physi sort of against this protection tional 2322, 1100, denied, 105 S.Ct. 471 U.S. cert. conduct, that governmental intrusive cally (1985); States 2323, 841 United 85 L.Ed.2d no Amendment, generalized the more not Cir.), (5th 975, 986-88 Winter, F.2d 509 v. must be process,’ due of ‘substantive tion 39, 825, 46 denied, 96 S.Ct. 423 cert. excessive analyzing of guide for [claims court, addition, (1975). no In 41 L.Ed.2d Graham, at 1871. See 109 S.Ct. force].” re which including the Toscanino Miller, F.2d 1265 v. States also United findings, has factual case for manded concurring). Cir.1989) (Easterbrook, J. (7th level that rises to found conduct ever however, Graham, concerned to States the United necessary require Mat- force while excessive use of for action decision jurisdiction. The itself of divest 60 L.Ed.2d Wolfish, argues torture took that the The concurrence viola- (1979). remedy, The is If the place the arrest. concurrence after during pre-trial clause process of the due tions place Honduras the arrest took correct that jurisdiction, of divestiture is not the detention ensuing flight damages. money injunction or detention, process but rather due pretrial then the part of implicated. See id. clearly Bell be would clause ratio- itly rejected the use of the deterrence petition. Never brought a habeas ta has In nale this situation. United States theless, petition is the underlying Matta’s Crews, held: and, by police excessive force use of analysis appropriate. exclusionary principle Wong of a similar The Sun U.S., covers claims for Lumber Co. fourth amendment Silverthorne [v. The L.Ed. 319 251 U.S. 40 S.Ct. as Matta’s under excessive force such (1920) proof the delimits what Govern by balancing “the ] standard reasonableness at may against offer the accused ment of the intrusion on quality nature and trial, to evi closing the courtroom door amendment interests” individual’s fourth by secured official lawlessness. dence at governmental interests against suppressible Respondent is not himself a Place, 462 U.S. stake. United States “fruit,” illegality and the of his detention 2637, 2642, 696, 703, 77 L.Ed.2d 103 S.Ct. deprive cannot the Government of (1983). “the ‘reasonableness’ of And prove guilt through the opportunity to only depends seizure particular wholly untainted introduction of evidence made, it is also on how it is but when police misconduct. Graham, at 1871 109 S.Ct. carried out.” 463, 474, 1244, 1251, 63 100 S.Ct. reason 445 U.S. (emphasis original). Under this (1980). L.Ed.2d This decision is based standard, the fourth amendment ableness opinion that the deterrent on the Court’s explicit textual basis for claims provides an excluding body of the defen- effect conduct as Matta’s of unconstitutional to warrant this ex- dant is sufficient during arrest. step might drastic a treme measure: “[s]o relief, however, requested Matta's marginally of the ends advance some supported by the fourth amendment. is not rules, exclusionary it served but would exclusionary essentially an His claim is degree inter- increase to an intolerable also body the defendant. Exclu rule for the having public interest in ference with simply of enforc sionary rules are means Crews, brought guilty to book.” the constitution.8 ing provisions at 1251 n. 20 U.S. at 474 n. 100 S.Ct. Powell, 428 U.S. 96 S.Ct. Stone Blue, (quoting 384 U.S. (1976); 3037, 3048, 49 L.Ed.2d 1067 1416, 1419, L.Ed.2d 911-22, Leon, (1966)). 3414-20, 82 L.Ed.2d addition, means of there are other primary justification for the exclu “The deterring police in cases such misconduct police sionary rule then is the deterrence of a consti- this that are less intrusive than that violates Fourth Amendment conduct ex- tutionally exclusionary rule. For based Stone, rights.” 428 U.S. at ample, file a Bivens action Matta could 911-22, Leon, 3048; see also rights. alleging violation his due addition, im at 3414-20. In the 104 S.Ct. that the case Alternatively he could ask be maintaining judicial integrity perative of prosecutorial for misconduct. dismissed exclusionary may play role in the rule some (We of these position take no on the merits Peltier, 422 calculus. United States v. See claims.) Moreover, for- complaints from 95 S.Ct. of international eign nations of violations Stone, at But see 428 U.S. international law as well as the loss of that neither ra S.Ct. at 3048. We believe deterrent ef- standing provide an additional supports application the of the ex tionale believe, the interfer- fect. We that where clusionary rule to this case. is severe judicial process the so ence with why reasons the deter- There are several means of deterrence and where other support applica- place, fails the the deterrence already rence rationale to in additional exclusionary present rule is not exclusionary the rule to the created the tion of First, enough justify its use. explic- has to Supreme case. the Court comity may such as under 2255. Reasons § 8. This is the one area where the district court's difference, analy- it is such a in a dictate important § use of 2254 would result different the cor- exclusionary petition for habeas under precludes rule to sis because Stone question open rect statute. under 2254 but left claims government we do not judi- While Stone, considered the Court In alleges, we can- as Matta misconduct exclusionary rationale for integrity cial per- exclusionary rule for the not create an imperative stated that The Court rule. analy- light in of our the defendant son of role, limited integrity plays a judicial repeated re-affirma- face of in sis and integrity itself judicial is holding that that no such Supreme Court tion “from a retreat to mandate enough rejected both exists. The Court rule proceedings need judicial that proposition integrity judicial and the the deterrence is person defendant’s when the abate exclusionary applied rule rationales for unconstitutionally seized.” therefore conclude We this context. to addition, In reliance at 3048. Toscanino, as as it creates at least far that has be- integrity rationale judicial on rule, vi- exclusionary longer no retains Leon, the years. In in recent suspect come adopt it as decline to tality and therefore question of wheth- “the held that the Court to If wishes this circuit.9 Matta the law of in evidence illegally obtained the use er mistreatment, do so must to object his par- judicial represents proceedings judicial failed to Matta has grounds. other on violation Amendment Fourth ticipation in a relief can be upon which state claim is integrity of the courts dis- Accordingly, we and offends affirm granted. inquiry into court.10 essentially the same trict would serve deter- exclusion whether WILL, Judge, District Senior n. at 921 purpose....” rence concurring. omitted). (citations at 3419 n. by the result integrity in the reached judicial I concur Therefore, analysis of the not, have tak- majority. I would ra- deterrence from the separate rationale no There is get road to there. en the same Moreover, warranted. may not be tionale reject or Toscanino disparage need through protected be integrity can judicial case, distinguishable clearly which is this misconduct. prosecutorial motions First, Toscanino the torture its facts. has twice Court Finally, Supreme egregious than grossly more alleged was Crews) re- (in addition Stone more shock although both alleges, what Toscanino, al- since affirmed Ker-Frisbie Second, more perhaps the conscience. grounds. on what though it is unclear contemplated in release as importantly, reaffirmed Lopez-Mendoza, remedy appropriate is not an Toscanino or identity a defendant ‘body’ or and release fugitive awas here. Matta “[t]he commuting ear- proceeding civil effectively or respondent in a criminal mean would sentence, an unwar- lier, lawfully imposed of an a fruit suppressible as itself never case That was not result. ranted arrest, if it is conceded even unlawful Toscanino. search, arrest, interrogation or an unlawful 1039-40, 104 S.Ct. occurred.” raised last time Toscanino The Pugh deciding And in Gerstein at 3483-84. from we refrained circuit it, do we retreat on the stated follow basis Court “[n]or whether distinguishable. or illegal arrest us was in front of rule case the established Marzano, F.2d 257 subsequent con- void a does not detention that Cir.1976). have taken (7th I would 119, 865. 95 at S.Ct. 420 U.S. viction.” D’Antoni, (1976). v. rejected on Toscanino exclusion- on wheth- we have As 9. Cir.1989). (7th of our the best position To F.2d 1214 ary grounds, take no 874 we rule conduct, apply alleged, cases that government’s knowledge, as violated are no there er the addition, we not do alle- defense to outrageous government the fourth amendment. conduct government de- "outrageous conduct” present reach gations those of torture 423, Russell, fense case. 1637, does 36 L.Ed.2d S.Ct. even argument this defense and base his estop- position on collateral no We 10. take had, recently that the noted continued we if he vitality except that to note pel of this decision effects given questionable this doctrine upon which state claim has failed to Hampton three-justice plurality in holding aof granted. can be relief 1646, 484, States, 96 S.Ct. v. United too, cumstances, here leaving open question route would believe himself to be whether or not to follow it until Boden, we are under arrest. United States v. presented comparable with a 983, (7th ease with Cir.1988); F.2d 991-93 facts. v. Robertson-Steeprow, 833 F.2d 777, (9th Cir.1987); United States v. that, It is conceivable to me in the words (7th Borys, Cir.1985). 766 F.2d 308-09 Rehnquist, of Justice may there be cases Matta was therefore long arrested before “in which the conduct of law enforcement time, he reached By American soil. agents is outrageous so that due already van, had been shoved into a with a principles absolutely govern would bar the head, hood over his and had been in the invoking judicial process ment from to ob company of twenty-four U.S. Marshals for tain a conviction.” United States v. Rus I imagine hours. do not that he was either sell, 423, 431-32, 411 U.S. traveling voluntarily or felt free to leave 1642-43, (1973)(entrapment 36 L.Ed.2d 366 during twenty-four marshals those case) (citing California, Rochin Accordingly, hours. the excessive force (not (1952) 96 L.Ed. 183 applied here would have been after Matta’s case)). entrapment also See Olmstead during arrest and pretrial detention be- v. United Marion, fore he reached removing this case (1928) (Bran 72 L.Ed. 944 from the reach of deis, J., Graham Connor. dissenting). previ This court has specifically question Graham reserves the ously expressed skepticism about whether whether a analysis ap- fourth amendment government ever, by outrageous would conduct, plies “beyond point at which arrest authority prose surrender its pretrial ends and begins.” detention process. cute as a matter of due E.g., n. D’Antoni, does, change 10. That United States v. F.2d (7th Cir.1989); case, result to be reached in how- United States Bont kowski, (7th Cir.1989); inappropriate 865 F.2d ever. Release remains an 131-32 Miller, remedy United States v. on the facts before us. Curtis 891 F.2d (7th Cir.1989) (Easterbrook, J., concurring). But we have never foreclosed cases, possibility entrapment ex —for cases, any cessive force or other kind of

case—and I reject see no reason to Toscan- thereby

ino and foreclose it for future today. cases our decision SKOWRONEK, John Richard judges I have no disagree doubt will Petitioner-Appellant, outrageousness, about the level of any, if that it judicial process. should take to bar BRENNAN, Edward G. But the simple disagreement fact of does Respondent-Appellee. not make the determination of what “out- rageous” conduct would consist of some- JOHN, David Olushina judicially how unmanageable more or sub- Petitioner-Appellant, than, jective instance, balancing goes distinguishing into a reasonable BRENNAN, Edward G. from an guilt unreasonable search or even Respondent-Appellee. innocence, and I would reserve the 88-1604, Nos. 88-1956. possibility day may, given that some we facts, option attempting want the Appeals, United States Court of determination. Seventh Circuit. Finally, majority any states that ex- Argued Oct. applied “during cessive force used was Decided Feb. course of” Matta’s arrest and assumes the arrest did not occur until Matta arrived at

the U.S. border. An arrest occurs when a person,

reasonable in view of all the cir-

Case Details

Case Name: Juan Ramon Matta-Ballesteros v. Gary L. Henman, Warden, United States Penitentiary at Marion, Illinois

Court Name: Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit

Date Published: Feb 22, 1990

Citation: 896 F.2d 255

Docket Number: 88-2767

Court Abbreviation: 7th Cir.