CA9: Violation of OR law on detaining suspected illegal aliens did not make a stop an egregious violation of the Fourth Amendment

Officer’s violation of a state statute that police departments cannot spend money “for the purpose of detecting or apprehending persons whose only violation of law is that they are persons of foreign citizenship present in the United States in violation of federal immigration laws” was still not an egregious violation of the Fourth Amendment justifying applying the exclusionary rule. The Fourth Amendment issue was unclear, too. Martinez-Medina v. Holder, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 5341 (9th Cir. March 11, 2011):

Generally, the exclusionary rule does not apply in civil deportation proceedings to evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment. Id. at 1050. An exception to this rule exists where the Fourth Amendment violation is egregious. Gonzalez-Rivera v. INS, 22 F.3d 1441, 1448 (9th Cir. 1994). Therefore, we must deny the petition for review unless the deputy sheriff violated Petitioners’ Fourth Amendment rights and that violation was egregious.

. . .

Here, even if we assume there was a Fourth Amendment violation, there is no evidence the deputy sheriff deliberately violated the Fourth Amendment. Further, a reasonable officer would not have known he lacked probable cause to detain Petitioners because, as we explain below, the deputy sheriff, unlike the officers in Lopez-Rodriguez, was not acting against an unequivocal doctrinal backdrop. The law was unclear as to whether an alien’s admission to being illegally present in the United States created probable cause to seize the alien for violating federal immigration law. Because of this lack of clarity in the law, there was no egregious Fourth Amendment violation.

. . .

Petitioners also contend the deputy sheriff committed an egregious Fourth Amendment violation when he seized Petitioners because he should have known he lacked authority under Oregon law to detain Petitioners. Oregon prohibits state law enforcement agencies from “us[ing] agency moneys, equipment or personnel for the purpose of detecting or apprehending persons whose only violation of law is that they are persons of foreign citizenship present in the United States in violation of federal immigration laws.” Or. Rev. Stat. § 181.850. But the deputy sheriff’s violation of Oregon law does not constitute a violation of the Fourth Amendment and, thus, cannot be the basis for finding an egregious Fourth Amendment violation. See Virginia v. Moore, 553 U.S. 164, 173-74, 128 S. Ct. 1598, 170 L. Ed. 2d 559 (2008).