ICE did an audit of meat processing plant workers and found that about two dozen employees had submitted I-9 identification that was in the FTC database for identity theft. Interrogating the workers was not a Fourth Amendment seizure. United States v. Flores, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19272 (D. Neb. February 16, 2012):<\/p>\n
The systematic questioning of employees at a workplace is not a seizure because “[o]rdinarily, when people are at work their freedom to move about has been meaningfully restricted, not by the actions of law enforcement officials, but by the workers’ voluntary obligations to their employers” and “most workers could have had no reasonable fear that they would be detained upon leaving.” [INS v. Delgado<\/a>, 466 U.S. 210,] at 218-19 [(1984)]. Under the Fourth Amendment, when officers have no basis for suspecting a particular individual, they may generally ask questions of the individual and ask to examine the individual’s identification. Id. at 216; United States v. Escobar<\/a>, 389 F.3d 781, 786 (8th Cir. 2004). Police may not, however, convey a message that compliance with their requests is required. Florida v. Bostick<\/a>, 501 U.S. 429, 435 (1991).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Accord: United States v. Mejia-Flores, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19272 (D. Neb. February 16, 2012).*<\/p>\n
Since the evidence before the trial court was not conflicting that there was consent, the appellate court was bound by that finding. Hernandez v. State<\/a>, 280 So. 3d 416 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading