N.D.N.Y.: Def’s immigration arrest was unreasonable and the product is suppressed

Defendant’s immigration arrest was unreasonable and the product is suppressed. United States v. Juarez-Lopez, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 269401 (N.D.N.Y. Dec. 18, 2025)*:

Under that [exclusionary rule] standard, suppression is warranted. The agents’ conduct here was, at best, “grossly negligent.” See Smith, 967 F.3d at 211-12. The DHS report described above reflects that agents arrested Defendant based on an admission that, evidently, never occurred. (Dkt. No. 23-9, at 3). Specifically, that report stated that Defendant “freely admitted to being in the United States illegally” while agents “questioned [her] as to her citizenship and nationality.” (Id.). But the Government has presented no evidence to refute Defendant’s assertion that agents at the factory questioned her once (for ten seconds), during which she stated only that she wanted a lawyer. (See Dkt. No. 23-16, ¶¶ 15-17). And as explained above, the record also contains no evidence that the arresting agents knew, at the time of Defendant’s arrest, about any of the alternative facts the Government now argues established probable cause. Those facts—Defendant’s silence and invocation of her right to counsel—were in any event deficient. Additionally, they developed only after agents engaged in conduct markedly different from that which the Government told the magistrate judge would occur.

These actions are “sufficiently deliberate that exclusion can meaningfully deter [them], and sufficiently culpable that such deterrence is worth the price paid by the justice system.” See Jones, 43 F.4th at 110-11 (quoting Herring v. United States, 555 U.S. 135, 144 (2009)). Any objective, “reasonably well[-]trained officer”—aware of the facts known to the arresting agents at the time, or lack thereof—”would have known that the [arrest] was illegal.” United States v. Rosa, 626 F.3d 56, 64 (2d Cir. 2010) (quoting Herring, 555 U.S. at 145). And “[w]hen the police exhibit ‘deliberate,’ ‘reckless,’ or ‘grossly negligent’ disregard for Fourth Amendment rights, the deterrent value of exclusion is strong and tends to outweigh the resulting costs.” Davis v. United States, 564 U.S. 229, 238 (2011) (quoting Herring, 555 U.S. at 144); see also United States v. Boles, 914 F.3d 95, 103 (2d Cir. 2019).