crimmigration.com

The intersection of criminal law and immigration law

Archive

After regularly updating crimmigration.com from January 2009 until November 2022, I have stopped doing so. I hope you continue to benefit from the blog as an archive. For up-to-date information about my work, visit ccgarciahernandez.com. – César

  • Home
  • About César
  • Articles
  • Books
  • Talks & Media

4 Cir: Calling ICE during routine traffic stop doesn’t violate 4th Amendment

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit determined that no unconstitutional seizure occurred where a local police officer took time to call ICE to verify the authenticity of a permanent residence card during an otherwise routine traffic stop. United States v. Guijon-Ortiz, No. 10-4518, slip op. (4th Cir. Nov. 10 2011) (Gregory, Davis, and Keith, JJ.). Judge Davis wrote panel’s opinion.

This case involved a stop by a West Virginia sheriff’s deputy of a pickup truck traveling at 66 miles per hour in a 65 mile per hour zone. After trailing the truck for some undisclosed time, including speeding up to catch up with it, the officer pulled the vehicle over because, as he explained it, the truck “‘was giving indicators of someone probably impaired or doing suspicions activity.’” Guijon-Ortiz, No. 10-4518, slip op. at 3.

The officer requested and received identification documents from the three occupants—driver’s licenses for the driver and one passenger and an LPR card from Guijon-Ortiz who, the officer said, “appeared ‘very nervous’ and ‘was shaking’” as he handed over the document. The officer quickly concluded that the driver’s licenses were valid and no warrants were outstanding. Guijon-Ortiz, No. 10-4518, slip op. at 4.

Instead of issuing a citation for the poor driving and letting the occupants go along their way, the officer asked his station to call ICE to check Guijon-Ortiz’s LPR card. Guijon-Ortiz, No. 10-4518, slip op. at 5. He provided no explanation for thinking it was a good idea to call ICE.

Eventually ICE agents concluded that the name on the card did not match the A number on the card so the card was likely fraudulent. In a conversation with ICE agents using the deputy’s cell phone, Guijon-Ortiz admitted that the card was not his and he did not have “other papers authorizing him to be in the United States.” Guijon-Ortiz, No. 10-4518, slip op. at 6.

This, the ICE agents informed the sheriff’s deputy, gave them “‘probable cause to believe he was an illegal alien.’” Guijon-Ortiz, No. 10-4518, slip op. at 6. The deputy then arrested Guijon-Ortiz and handed him over to ICE agents who learned that he had previously been removed and that his name was Guijon-Ortiz rather than Daniel Gaitan as indicated on the card. Guijon-Ortiz, No. 10-4518, slip op. at 7-8.

Guijon-Ortiz tried to suppress much of this evidence in the illegal reentry, INA § 276(a), prosecution that followed. Guijon-Ortiz, No. 10-4518, slip op. at 8. The question before the Fourth Circuit was “a narrow one: Once the officer learned that there were no outstanding warrants, and having been provided an LPR card by the defendant as identification, was he permitted to then call ICE—a call that took some portion of ‘a few minutes’—to verify the validity of the LPR card?” Guijon-Ortiz, No. 10-4518, slip op. at 11.

The Fourth Circuit ultimately concluded that the officer was permitted to call ICE. A routine traffic stop, the court began by explaining, is akin to an investigative detention. Under Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968), an investigation detention is constitutionally permissible if it is justified at its inception and if “the continued stop was ‘sufficiently limited in scope and duration to satisfy the conditions of an investigative seizure.’” Guijon-Ortiz, No. 10-4518, slip op. at 13 (quoting Florida v. Royer, 460 U.S. 491, 500 (1983)).

A stop is limited in scope and duration if “‘the police diligently pursued a means of investigation that was likely to confirm or dispel their suspicions quickly, during which time it was necessary to detain the defendant.’” Guijon-Ortiz, No. 10-4518, slip op. at 13 (quoting United States v. Sharpe, 470 U.S. 675, 686 (1985)). During this time an officer may ask about “‘matters unrelated to the justification for the traffic stop…so long as those inquiries do not measurably extend the duration of the stop.’” Guijon-Ortiz, No. 10-4518, slip op. at 14 (quoting Arizona v. Johnson, 129 S. Ct. 781, 788 (2009)).

An officer’s actions during a traffic stop meets this requirement, the court went on, so long as “the principal inquiry…is ‘the officer’s diligence—i.e., his preserving or devoted application to accomplish the undertaking of ascertaining whether the suspected traffic violation occurred, and, if necessary, issuing a ticket.’” Guijon-Ortiz, No. 10-4518, slip op. at 15 (quoting United States v. Everett, 601 F.3d 484, 494 (6th Cir. 2010)).

In contrast, if an officer were to abandon the traffic stop and pursue another course of investigation a court could conclude that the officer lacked the requisite diligence in completing the stop in a limited scope and duration. Guijon-Ortiz, No. 10-4518, slip op. at 16.

The sheriff deputy’s actions here were diligent, the court concluded. In the court’s words, “The time it took for the officer to call ICE was at most ‘a few minutes.’ The officer’s concern that led to the stop—that the driver was somehow dangerously impaired—had not yet been dispelled. And, Flowers chose to call ICE to verify the validity of the Gaitan ID the (somewhat nervous) defendant provided, rather than subjecting him to questioning on the topic. Extending the stop to verify the validity of the ID without reasonable suspicion might well have rendered the stop unreasonable if the stop had been longer or if some other aspect of the officer’s conduct had demonstrated definitive abandonment of the prosecution of the traffic stop.” Guijon-Ortiz, No. 10-4518, slip op. at 22.

Calling ICE was thus constitutionally permissible.

  • Share via Facebook
  • Share via LinkedIn
  • Share via Twitter
  • Share via Email

Share this:

  • Twitter
  • Facebook

Posted by César on April 12, 2012 on 9:00 am 9 Comments
Filed Under: 4th Amendment, 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, local immigration policing

Comments

  1. Lee says

    April 12, 2012 at 1:07 pm

    Tell me this was not racially motivated! How many anglosaxon stops for one mile over the speed limit does this officer call ICE on? A few minutes to verify is a court fabricated pretext to allow for an unrelated, unnecessary procedure to be used by a racist police officer. If the issue was impairment then a DUI test or breath test is routine not their immigration status. Nothing but injustice in this stinky case.

    Reply
  2. Ray says

    April 12, 2012 at 5:06 pm

    Your comment is spot on! Another case of the courts starting with a fixed outcome, then twisting their tortuous legal reasoning and the facts to reach the outcome they initially decided thew wanted to see. In other words, reasoning in every way we were all taught in law school not to reason in.

    Reply
  3. Richard Coshnear says

    April 13, 2012 at 12:14 pm

    Sure looks like the defendant was a passenger, from the 3rd paragraph. Why did a passenger have to ID himself? How did the ID of the passenger relate to the impairment of the driver?

    Reply
  4. http://casinoonlineukcasinos.co.uk says

    April 28, 2013 at 10:22 pm

    http://casinoonlineukcasinos.co.uk

    crImmigration.com: 4 Cir: Calling ICE during routine traffic stop doesn’t violate 4th Amendment

    Reply
  5. Fake Oakley Rada says

    July 9, 2013 at 7:04 am

    Fake Oakley Rada

    For most up-to-date news you have to pay a quick visit the web and on internet I found this site as a most excellent site for latest updates.

    Reply
  6. Cheap Ray Ban says

    July 12, 2013 at 11:21 am

    Cheap Ray Ban

    I have read so many articles about the blogger lovers however this piece of writing is actually a pleasant paragraph, keep it up.

    Reply
  7. Oakley Flak Jacket Sunglasses says

    July 22, 2013 at 12:01 am

    Oakley Flak Jacket Sunglasses

    What’s up mates, you are sharing your view concerning weblog SEO, I am also new user of web, thus I am also getting more from it. Thanks to all.

    Reply
  8. rqnwvcgw says

    March 7, 2014 at 1:12 pm

    rqnwvcgw

    Agree with your post. Hope you can keep update your post. I will back. bye!

    Reply
  9. glolo says

    March 10, 2014 at 9:04 pm

    glolo

    crImmigration.com: 4 Cir: Calling ICE during routine traffic stop doesn’t violate 4th Amendment

    Reply

Leave a Comment Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Subscribe


Recent Posts

  • Pelosi attacker reportedly Canadian overstayer
  • Biden marijuana pardon meets immigration law & fizzles
  • California private prison ban is illegal, 9th Circuit says
  • Citizenship is complicated
  • Supreme Court says Biden can end MPP
  • Uvalde massacre & immigration law aid

Search

Social Media

Blawg 100 Honoree

The information contained on these pages must not be considered legal advice and does not create an attorney-client relationship. This work by www.crImmigration.com is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.