By Katie Tinto The availability of the exclusionary rule as a remedy for unconstitutional police conduct was recently further restricted by the Supreme Court in Utah v. Strieff, ___ S. Ct. ___, No. 14-1373 (June 20, 2016). In a prior blog post, I warned of the potential of Strieff to seriously limit the availability of the suppression remedy in immigration court. Although the exclusionary rule in immigration court may not be directly impacted, the decision will likely have a detrimental effect on our immigrant communities and the manner in which they are policed. To quickly summarize the [...]
Utah v. Strieff and the Exclusionary Rule’s Future in Immigration Court
By Katie Tinto Immigration scholars and practitioners should pay close attention to the outcome of Utah v. Strieff, a Fourth Amendment case argued before the U.S. Supreme Court two weeks ago. 357 P.3d 532 (Utah 2015), cert. granted, 136 S. Ct. 27 (U.S. Oct. 1, 2015) (No. 14-1373). In this case, the police detained Mr. Strieff without reasonable suspicion, and then, after obtaining his identification, ran a routine warrant check on his name and discovered an outstanding arrest warrant for a traffic violation. During the search incident to arrest on the traffic warrant, the officer found [...]
Revisiting the exclusionary rule’s role in immigration proceedings
By Lindsay Adkin Thirty years ago in its landmark decision, INS v. Lopez-Mendoza, 468 U.S. 1032 (1984), the Supreme Court held that the exclusionary rule should not apply to removal proceedings. Applying a cost-benefit analysis, the Court concluded that whatever benefit exclusion offered in immigration proceedings was outweighed by the cost of allowing removable immigrants to remain in the United States. Whether or not that was a proper assessment in 1984, the state of immigration law today—especially the rise of crimmigration law—leads to the opposite conclusion: the exclusionary rule [...]
SCOTUS takes two criminal cases with potential crimmigration impact
Last week the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear two cases with possible crimmigration law implications. Attesting to immigration law’s broad intersection with criminal procedure and criminal law, the first case concerns criminal procedure while the second concerns criminal law. Fourth Amendment: Heien v. North Carolina The first case, Heien v. North Carolina, No. 13-604, asks the Court to consider whether a police officer’s mistaken understanding of criminal law can provide the individualized suspicion that the Fourth Amendment requires to justify a traffic stop. The police officer pulled [...]
3 Cir: Exclusionary rules applies in removal proceedings
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, [...]
8 Cir: Warrantless arrest isn’t egregious 4th Amend violation meriting suppression
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit rejected a non-citizen’s attempt to exclude evidence of his identity obtained after a warrantless arrest. Garcia-Torres v. Holder, No. 10-2307, slip op. (8th Cir. 2011) (Loken, Colloton, and Nelson, JJ.). District Judge Nelson, sitting by designation on the Eighth Circuit, wrote the panel’s opinion. This case involved an entrant without inspection who was present at a Missouri restaurant that local police officers “acting on a tip that alcohol was being consumed in violation of a local ordinance” entered without a warrant. Garcia-Torres, No. [...]