In an impressively articulated and groundbreaking decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held that the exclusionary rule can apply in removal proceedings when ICE agents engage in egregious or widespread constitutional violations. Oliva-Ramos v. Attorney General, No. 10-3849, slip op. (3d Cir. Nov. 16, 2011) (McKee, Rendell, and Ambro, JJ.). Judge McKee wrote the panel’s decision.
The events that led up to this case being litigated read like a nightmare. At 4:30 in the morning armed ICE agents appeared at the apartment that Oliva-Ramos shared with his three sisters, nephew, and brother-in-law. Oliva-Ramos, No. 10-3849, slip op. at 3. After repeatedly ringing the doorbell and waiving an administrative warrant for a sister who wasn’t home, the agents followed another sister into the apartment. Oliva-Ramos, No. 10-3849, slip op. at 3-4.
While one agent blocked the door so no one could leave, other agents moved through the apartment shining flashlights and guns into darkened bedrooms, waking everyone, and ordering them into the living room. Oliva-Ramos, No. 10-3849, slip op. at 4-5. Five or six officers, the court reported, began questioning the occupants about the missing sister; when Oliva-Ramos’s nephew refused to answer their questions “the officers ordered him to speak and told him he could not refuse to answer them.” Oliva-Ramos, No. 10-3849, slip op. at 5.
At some point another sister “began menstruating while the family was in the living room, but [another sister] Clara was not allowed to get any feminine hygiene products for her.” Oliva-Ramos, No. 10-3849, slip op. at 6. When the officers finally relented, they required the menstruating woman to use the bathroom with the door open “while an ICE officer stood outside the door.” Oliva-Ramos, No. 10-3849, slip op. at 6.
Eventually everyone but the one sister who could prove she was lawfully present was “handcuffed, placed in an ICE van and driven around while the officers made several more raids.” Oliva-Ramos, No. 10-3849, slip op. at 6. All the while, Oliva-Ramos was forced to go without food or water. “Between 6:00 and 7:00 p.m., he was finally given the first food that he had been allowed to eat during his 15-hour ordeal.” Oliva-Ramos, No. 10-3849, slip op. at 6.
Oliva-Ramos sought to exclude the evidence of his removability, including all the evidence obtained during this search and the
subsequent arrest. Oliva-Ramos, No. 10-3849, slip op. at 8. The IJ denied the motion, concluding that the exclusionary rule doesn’t apply in removal proceedings. Oliva-Ramos, No. 10-3849, slip op. at 8. The BIA affirmed. Oliva-Ramos, No. 10-3849, slip op. at 11.
The Third Circuit disagreed based on the widespread or egregious violation exception that the Supreme Court implied in INS v. Lopez-Mendoza, 468 U.S. 1032 (1984). In Lopez-Mendoza, the Court held “the exclusionary rule need not be applied in such a [deportation] proceeding.” Lopez-Mendoza, 468 U.S. at 1034. But, it added, “Our conclusions concerning the exclusionary rule’s value might change if there developed good reason to believe that Fourth Amendment violations by INS officers were widespread,” the Court added. “Finally, we do not deal here with egregious violations of Fourth Amendment or other liberties that might transgress notions of fundamental fairness and undermine the probative value of the evidence obtained.” Lopez-Mendoza, 468 U.S. at 1051-51.
The Third Circuit began by noting that four justices joined this plurality opinion, but another four justices would have adopted a broader position: they would have allowed the exclusionary rule to apply in all deportation proceedings (now called removal proceedings). Oliva-Ramos, No. 10-3849, slip op. at 20. As such, eight of the nine justices in Lopez-Mendoza, the Third Circuit concluded, recognized, at a minimum, that the exclusionary rule can be invoked in removal proceedings when the government engages in widespread or egregious constitutional violations. Oliva-Ramos, No. 10-3849, slip op. at 20.
Having concluded that Olivas-Ramos was entitled to seek to suppress unconstitutional evidence, the court noted that the next question was whether the evidence was obtained in a manner that can be characterized as either an egregious Fourth Amendment violation or part of a widespread pattern of constitutional violations. The BIA failed to do this because it concluded that the exclusionary rule never applies in removal proceedings. The court didn’t decide whether the claims made by Olivas-Ramos rise to the level of egregious or widespread abuses; instead, it remanded to the BIA to decide this. Oliva-Ramos, No. 10-3849, slip op. at 38.
In determining whether a constitutional violation was egregious, the court adopted a version of the Second Circuit’s test: exclusion is appropriate “within the meaning of Lopez-Mendoza, if the record evidence established either (a) that a constitutional violation that was fundamentally unfair had occurred, or (b) that the violation—regardless of its unfairness—undermined the reliability of the evidence in dispute.” Oliva-Ramos, No. 10-3849, slip op. at 31 (discussing Almeida-Amaralv. Gonzales, 461 F.3d 231 (2d Cir. 2006))). This, the court added, is a flexible, multi-factor determination that takes into account the totality of the circumstances. Oliva-Ramos, No. 10-3849, slip op. at 32-33. Importantly, the court explained, “the inquiry does not turn on the good/bad faith of the agents involved.” Oliva-Ramos, No. 10-3849, slip op. at 33 n.24.
The court then turned to the widespread violation exception about which, it acknowledged, there was no guidance. Oliva-Ramos, No. 10-3849, slip op. at 33. As a starting point, it explained that “most constitutional violations that are part of a pattern of widespread violations of the Fourth Amendment would also satisfy the test for an egregious violation.” Oliva-Ramos, No. 10-3849, slip op. at 34. It did not provide much more detail except to note that Oliva-Ramos’s allegations, if true, “may well illustrate the precise situation that was anticipated in Lopez-Mendoza.” Oliva-Ramos, No. 10-3849, slip op. at 35. Since the IJ denied Oliva-Ramos’s subpoena of ICE documents and the BIA ignored this evidence once Oliva-Ramos was able to obtain it through a FOIA request, the court remanded with an instruction that the BIA (or IJ) consider the facts presented in these documents—facts detailing the government’s rampant use of militarized, high-intensity tactical units with a penchant for violating Fourth Amendment norms.
All in all, this is a fabulous decision that promises to go a long way in reigning in the extreme policing strategies that ICE favored during the late years of the second Bush Administration. Many congratulations are due to the folks over at NYU Law’s immigration clinic that represented Oliva-Ramos.
Malic market prise can be worth 1 trillion dollar
Apple whether be worth 1 trillion dollar? This is likely. If simple for, the IPhone of 342 billion dollar and IPad manufacturer are in this market prise to exceeded Aikesenmei August 9 the United States’ most valuable company already was become when market prise of inspire confidence in sb. But malic sale increased inside a year 80% , profit rises more quickly. At present malic city is filled with rate is basic comparative with big city,Apple Nuojiya shift instant communication tomorrow short message or collect fees by discharge_9875, but less than him city was filled with the half of rate 2006, amplitude of malic sales revenue is far however at that time not so fast now. Up to the money September 2012 year, malic city is filled with rate it is 11 times about,longchamp taschen, 500 indexes city is filled with standard general Er rate it is 10 times about, the sale amplitude of Dan Ping fruit is adjacent appear on the market 10 times what the company sells amplitude on average. In addition, the apple still sits have ready money of 76 billion dollar and investment. Want to understand this one moue, the town that requires Lv and apple is filled with rate and growth rate (PEG Ratio) . City is filled with rate will measure a stock with every gain relative value, but circumstance of growth of reflective tomorrow profit should be filled with rate and incremental ratio rate with city, it is be filled with by city rate except with every year profit growth calculates a value. Numerical value is lower, mean a company to exceed petty gain. Current, malic city is filled with rate and growth rate for 0.2, compare with other company look honest too low. For example, city of Chipotle Mexican Grill of Mexican chain dining-room is filled with rate and growth rate for 2.1, salesforce.com city is filled with rate and growth rate to be for 13.2. Pandora and LinkedIn are hopeless even make money. Change kind of computation way, the city of hypothesis apple is filled with rate reach the level 2006, its market prise is 900 billion dollar about. With nowadays add high fast, want appreciably excessive price only,manolo blahnik, this company market prise can reach 1 trillion dollar. If because healthy state does not stabilize Qiaobusi,not be, malic share price cannot be so cheap. Really, the apple is current the sale of every quarter prep above 2007 money year annual, and still be in rapid growth. This kind of amplitude puts delay easily likely, but smartphone and flat computer market are very young, malic clienteles are very staunch, the domain such as TV also prepares to receive new product. In ad
I find it unbelievable, yet not surprising, that the Board did not properly analyze the exclusionary rule. Even the Ninth has said that the exclusionary could be applicable if the facts supported a Fourth Amendment violation. While I believe, for Officer Safety reasons, that the door to bathrooms and rooms need to remain open, I am not certain whether the actions here were within reason.
payday loans
crImmigration.com: 3 Cir: Exclusionary rules applies in removal proceedings
back pain remedies
Hmm is anyone else experiencing problems with the pictures on this blog loading? I’m trying to figure out if its a problem on my end or if it’s the blog. Any feedback would be greatly appreciated.
how to make a solar cell
Sweet blog! I found it while browsing on Yahoo News. Do you have any suggestions on how to get listed in Yahoo News? I’ve been trying for a while but I never seem to get there! Thanks
payday loans
This can be specifically what I used to be seeking for, many thanks
calzado asics
I’ll gear this review to 2 types of people: current Zune owners who are considering an upgrade, and people trying to decide between a Zune and an iPod. (There are other players worth considering out there, like the Sony Walkman X, but I hope this gives you enough info to make an informed decision of the Zune vs players other than the iPod line as well.)
louis vuitton bags
Quantitative methylation analysis identified ABCB1, FOXC1, PPP2R2B and PTEN as novel genes to be methylated in DCIS. In particular, FOXC1 showed a significant increase in the methylation frequency in invasive tumours.
Ray Ban Sale
This is a good post. I really like it. This post is quite unique and extraordinary. The author must be very talented.\nRay Ban Aviator sunglasses encompass the shape that started it all. The Ray Ban Aviator is the brand staple originally designed for the U.S. military fighter pilots in 1937. Ray Ban Aviator sunglasses have a timeless look with the unmistakable teardrop shaped lenses. This style allowed the Aviator to quickly spread beyond its utility, becoming popular among celebrities, rock stars, and citizens of the world alike. This is an iconic look that has endured for nearly a century.
vpdvftsafd
crImmigration.com: 3 Cir: Exclusionary rules applies in removal proceedings
nintendo 3ds xl prix
You are so amazing! I dona??t consider Ia??ve read anything at all like this prior to. So very good to locate any person with some first thoughts on this matter. Many thanks for commencing this up.
buy garcinia cambogia
crImmigration.com: 3 Cir: Exclusionary rules applies in removal proceedings
nafjfqasb
crImmigration.com: 3 Cir: Exclusionary rules applies in removal proceedings