CA1: Arrest of removable alien was without RS, but because no flagrant violation of 4A, no suppression

Respondent was ordered removed from the country after ICE agents encountered him at work. They thought he was somebody else, and he was handcuffed and questioned. It became apparent that he wasn’t the man they were looking for, but he also was in the country illegally, having overstayed his visa. The motion to suppress before the BIA was denied because he did not show a flagrant violation of the Fourth Amendment, and the exclusionary rule thus didn’t apply to his immigration proceeding. Corado-Arriaza v. Lynch, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 22501 (1st Cir. Dec. 19, 2016).

The trial court here reasonably concluded that a reasonable person in defendant’s position, having had officers pull alongside him while riding his bicycle and initiate a conversation, would not have felt free to ignore the officers’ request to speak with him. The record supports that this encounter lacked reasonable suspicion. State v. Swift, 2016-Ohio-8191, 2016 Ohio App. LEXIS 5054 (2d Dist. Dec. 16, 2016).*

This entry was posted in Exclusionary rule, Reasonable suspicion. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.