S.D.W.Va.: “Shocking” nature of immigration raid on a Mexican restaurant at lunchtime didn’t warrant suppression

Defendants run a family-owned Mexican restaurant in West Virginia. HSI did a masked and armed immigration middle of day raid for employees under an inspection warrant. While the raid may have been “shocking” to everybody, it’s not enough to be unreasonable. And there’s a standing issue. United States v. Aguirre-Arello, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 235841 (S.D. W. Va. Oct. 15, 2026):

It may be that law enforcement unreasonably executed the warrant at the Rio Grande restaurant. Armed, armored, and masked officers and agents descended upon a family restaurant in the middle of the day. They questioned individuals present and seized eight individuals—not the Defendants. Those actions by the Government are sure to have struck fear into the hearts of the patrons, the staff, and the community. This, however, is not sufficient to establish standing for the Defendants.

I came to the same conclusion in a similarly shocking case. See United States v. Westmoreland, 982 F. Supp. 376 (S.D. W. Va. 1997). In Westmoreland “five to seven agents stormed” into Dr. Westmoreland’s (the defendant’s) waiting room where at least 15 patients, some elderly, were waiting. Id. at 379. At a suppression hearing, patients in the room that day testified to the “shock” of the raid, recounting how they were searched and questioned while Westmoreland’s sixteen-year-old daughter cried out in the waiting room. Id. at 379-80. “Over thirty minutes passed before the agents allowed any patients to leave.” Id. at 380.

Westmoreland moved to suppress the fruits of the search on four bases, including the reasonableness of the execution of the search warrant. Id. at 381. I quickly concluded that it was, in fact, unreasonable, and observed that it was “inexplicable why agents thought it necessary to hold between fifteen and twenty innocent citizens at gunpoint, to order them to turn and place their hands against the wall, and to demand that they remain motionless in that position for eight minutes.” Id.

But the analysis did not end there because despite how “outrageous” and “egregious” the search was, Westmoreland lacked standing to challenge it. Id. at 377-78. Instead, I found that his motion to suppress failed “as a matter of substantive Fourth Amendment law.” Id. at 381. The problem:

Because the agents conducted the search pursuant to a warrant, the illegality cannot arise from the fact that a search occurred. Instead, it was the manner in which agents executed the search that violated the Fourth Amendment. Yet the agents did not inflict their outrageous conduct on the defendant, but on his patients, housekeeper, and child. Westmoreland was neither present nor personally aggrieved by the unreasonable execution of the search warrant in the waiting room or in the residence.

Id. at 382.

Here the result is the same. The raid at Rio Grande may have disturbed the customers and the staff, but the Defendants who now challenge the execution of the search warrant were neither searched nor seized. It may be that the search uncovered evidence helpful to the Government and harmful to the Defendants, but the Defendants lack standing to challenge the execution. On that ground, the motion to dismiss and suppress must be DENIED.

This entry was posted in immigration searches, Warrant execution. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.