David Antonio Lara-Torres, A094 218 294 (BIA Jan. 28, 2014)

8/13/2019 David Antonio Lara-Torres, A094 218 294 (BIA Jan. 28, 2014)

1/19

Aparisi, Jaime Winthuysen

J

Executive Oce r Imigraon Rew

Bd g O Ck

5 7 bg Pik i F Chh Vgi 53

Law Oces of Jaime Winthuysen Apaisi8630 Feton See, Suie 932

HS/ICE Oice of Chief Counsel - BA1 Hopkns Paza Room 1600altmoe, MD 21201

Sve pring MD 20910

Name: AA TORRES, AVI ANONO A 0941894

Dae of is oce /28/2014

ncsed s a copy of h Boa's decson an oder n he abov-rncd cas.

ncos

P sa as KGa a Gs

Sncely,

D CDona Ca

Cif Ck

For more unpublished BIA decisions, visit www.irac.net/unpublished

Cite as: David Antonio Lara-Torres, A094 218 294 (BIA Jan. 28, 2014)


2/19

U.S Executive Ofce Imgaton Reew

Decso o e Board of graon Appeal

Fa Chuch, Vra

A4 218 24 Bamore Da: JN 2 8 4

re DAV ATOO LARATORS

REOVAL POCEDG

PPAL

ON BEALF OF RESPOE Jm Wnysn Aps Esqe

ON BEHF O D:

PPLICAION naon

Ka S BakerAsss Chef Cose

T Dpn of omed Sr (DS has a my appa om graonJdg's deson dad 2 212 Tha dson rd a moon o sppress evdene dena proeedngs d b he responden a ae d en o Saador W wsmss e appea

We vw mgraon Jdges ndngs o r ro esons of wdsreo d jden d a her sss n appes de novo 8 CF .(d()

ode a h dngs of mad b Immgraon Jdge e no eeoneos. Basd on hos ds e rao Judg o odd a dne obaned b ofers of he Naona Sry Agny (SA on M 2 wrgd sponden's o ss wh proped oers o Ud SasIaon d Csos Enrmen (CE o dan he respondn d pa m n reov

proedngs, sod b sppressed

On appa DHS ges a grao Jdg d (1) dng a e UdSas Spre Co's dso n Lopez-Mendza 68 US 2 (84) dsbseqen dsons ssd h Und Sas Co o Apps he Foh Cr raed

an "eos oaons expon o e Foh enmn xsny ru appab omaon progs d (2) ng a greos o d or n s ase wros o e NSA hed he spoden sra os he awang e a o ICEoers. repoe responden ges a he a udg's eson was oe a resps d sod b aed a DSs appa sod be dsmssed

We e no persa Ds gmens d we af mao dge'sdeon h ons se ern (I a 6-1). We agre wh h aon dg ae responde s brdn o sasng a prma e ase a sppreson s w ns proeedngs o bass of e NA fes egrgos ond See Matter fBarceas I&N De 6 6 (BA 88 Matter f Tag, 1 N De 61 (BIA 17 Ao e

esponden oedd a hs na deenon was w he edn aed a e NA



3/19

A094 218 294

fcers dd not psu diligenty th ac stp d instead cse to embk on a plvestigatin int te rspondents immgration stats wle easonbly polgng hisdetentn r appoximately r hus See United Stte v GunOrti 660 3d 757, 7704th C 2011) mpaizing tht ofcer who lwly stos dividu r n prpose utans psection f the stop t investgate a irent potential vlton h

easonaly pronged he stp); United Stte v. Digivnni 650 3d 98, 50809 C.2011) digence is nt present wher he polic cer andned the prsecution f tracstop nd embked on oth sustained course of investigatin r were e uelatd qestionsconstitd e lk f te tactin tween the plice ofcer te endt) UnitedStte v Mn 628 3d 23, 32 4 Cr 2010) dng tt qesng nrted to ntial justicatin stp my vilate e urh edment f it nrasnaly rlongs thedetentin f the individal wh as een stppe). Moreover, even tho e NSA fces

ltmtely gave te respondnt a rafc ctatin, e ul f thir esions related t hsimmigratin stats

We also ee w th Imatin dg at te rth Amendment vilatin descred by

t responent was egrgus ecas it seemed t base slly on race (GonleRiver vS 22 3d 14, 43 4t Cir 199); ee o Tr at 4-15, 18, 2731), d tat sc cndctwats suppression f e vdence bted INS v LpeMend upr at 051. TheImmaton Judge made specic ndings f ct n this, wich ar nt clly eneus Themiatin Judge und tat whe the respndent was detane, 20 oe drivers commited these trc vilaon tat he hd cmmitted, yet only n er drivr, as Hispc, wasuestioned regding his igatin status Both whte d black drivers were stpped briy

but were wed t pss d n thr dve ecived cittin r ing int the NSA ciityAlhou the DHS sggested that the ter drivs may hav cme to NSA citypusely, e igration Judge nd tat t s impusi at a iver wh ntended tovisit the NSA wold smpy round d eave immeditly aer val, wtut ging

inse the cility Ts nding als is not cearly enes W als gre that sppressin fthe evidnce is apprpate hre becuse e sect f civil matn poceigs w not

win te zne f prm interest of e NA ocers wh stpped d qustioned erspndent IJ at 214) See United Stte v Jni 428 US. 33, 458 1976)

W her agree with te iation Jdge that te DH did nt met its urdn to jstith mr in whic it tnd t evidence in qestin h, iclding edence m theMaryld Mto Vecl Amsatin, wch was otaed s a result f the unlawl actinsof th NSA ocs As expesed by the igratin Judge, citing Wong Sn v United Stte371 U 47, 49 964), te cnctin en the MVA rcords d te unaw cnduct ofh NSA ocers is nt s attenutd as t dssipate e taint. Aso, te DHS did nt prsntgeninely independent evidence f the respndnts ainage Nr did it submit afdats ortestimny om e NSA ofcers cal ogs m e NA gathouse, or the evdence t rebuth ndng o a prim ce vlaion f t or mennt. erer, we aee w teIitn Jdges deteination t tenate these prceedngs with prejudc n e asistt the evdence n wch th DHS seeks to rely is sbject t supprssin See Mtter Grci17 &N Dc 39 1980)

iven e regg, we decline to disturb he Iiaion Judgs decision grntng therespondents motion to spprss venc d tat s rmova procedgs.

2



4/19

. A094 294

corgly, e fwg order sha be entered

ORDR: Te ape is ismsse



5/19

I Maer

n Sas Darn JusicExcue Oc r Igrai Reiw

ed Sas Igran CuBaire, Maryad

I Rva Prcedigs

ai Ai LARA TORRES Cas #A - -

Respe

Carge mmigron n Nionliy A ("A) 22()(6)()(i

Apicais: Rpondn Moion o Supr nd Tmin

Aparacs Yuuf R Ahmd on bhlf o h Rondn;Kr S Br on blf of rmn of Homlnd Sriy

Decis ad Order r: Rspodnt s M Supress ad TeraI rcedura isry

Rponn lgd o b niv n izn of l Slvdor On Mr 3 20 0 hRponn givn rf ion i driving on Nionl Suri Agny ("NSA)propry T NSA or o iu iion lo nd mmigrion CuomEnrmn ("IC) of Rpondn' prn on h ropry n in by CEor on On Aril 200 pld in rodng hroug h iun of no o ppr ("NTA) Th A rg him i rmovbiiy un NA 22(){6)()() n ln o i prn in Uni S iho bing mid or pro

On Fbrury 7 20 h Rpodn ppr r h Immgron Cou d, oughounl dnid llgion onnd in NTA n h g of mobty H oindi h nn o l moon o upr d rmn Th Cour onnud Rponn e t e ee ee n tte n t D nn mo n 9 n H


6/19

, O uut t Cor ud n ordr qtin upplmnt brin in iht of t

Fouh Cuit nt diion in e Se Digioi, 650 F3d 498 4th Cir 20) ThCo lo prtd th pondnt to ubmit n mndd dvit in lt of t uidn ndrition providd by Digiovai On Sptmbr 30 01, th Rpondnt ubmitd bif

ddring th ppition ofDigioi to h ll uplmnt fdvit T DHSld bf in pon on Novmb 0, 0

On Api 17, 202, th Cou iud diion nding tht th Rpodnt hd ld thih oud uppo bi r ppin th vidn ptd by th DHS A ult thCou odd n vidnty hrin to lo th pri to fh dvlop th od. Th rn hld on un 5, 2012, nd t tht hin th podnt povidd ttimony in ppo of hmotion Nith p od oth itn o ubmtd ddition vidn At th o of thrin both pi inditd t thy ould rt on th itn rumnt thy hd ldyubmitd At iu b t Cou i ht t vidn pntd by th HS houd buppd ultig in t tmintion of th podin

II Samn f as

A Rspod's Moo o Suppss

T Rpondnt ond tht th initil top ondutd by NSA or vid;

ov h rg tt h ubtd to tionn nd polongd dtnton viotion of tFouh d Fih mndmnt of th S Conttuto nd vld ltoy thority Spilyh l tht h utiond bot hi immtion t nd dtind r ur ho on thbi of i H o rt tht h not nd of hi ht to min lnt o h rht ton ttoy H thr k to pp ll vidn obtind ut hth ditly o mo

indity of th t top ondutd by th NSA Finly h u ht i h bn of thvidn t DHS h ld to mt it budn of poofnd tht th prodin houd rrb titd

B DHS's Bif in Suo mval ad Oppsiio o Rsnn's Moion oSupss

Th DS gu tt th uiony ru do not pply in immition podin ThDHS h rgu tht vn if th luionry ppi th Rpondnt' utionng nddntion not in viotion of th Foh or Fih ndmnt nd tht ny violtionr not uintly rio to nt uppron. n ddtion t DHS r tht thRpondnt h ld to pi ho IC nt viotd HS ution Finlly t DHS rutht h Rpondnt motion i moot bu th D HS h intodud vid oflin obtnd


7/19

eode Suplemen Be

hi umnl brif, h Rpodt r ht t w trfc op initid by tNSA ocr w unoby roongd by r intgtion d qutioning rgrding tRponnt' igrtion ttu hr rgu tt th idnc rct tt t SA ofcr'primy coc w t Rponnt' immigrion u, ot rc ioltion

HS' Sulee Bie

i umtl bf, S irt ht th cuiony rul do not py n ciiimmigon rocding h S o contd low "h cou ould not b ditrcdby nt whic occurrd br th rod w dnd by HS, ad gin curtyrquirm o city uc NSA, my wll h bn wrrntd Rgd of th roriyof h to conducd by th NSA olic, uc conduc o ot m l idnc drdhrom i uribl

II. Saee o e Fac

h owing ocumnty nc rci by h Court d mrkd rdnticion Ehibit Rodnt' Notic to Ar rou Ehibi 2 S Submiion ofEidnc bbd AE; Eibit 3 , S Submiio of Eidc bbd F Rodnt' Drir'Licn Aicion d Suoting Documnt); Grou Exibi 4 Rodnt' Moion toSur nd Trmint bb AB d Ehibit 5 Rodn' Brif i Supo of otion oSur Tbbd A Rpond' Suplmnt Adit) hi moion t Ronnt ougtt upprion of inc ubmitt by h S A rut, oly Exibit Grou Exhibit 4n Exbit 5 r mittd ino t rcor rior to idtiy ring

upo o hi Moion to Suppr, t Rodt ubmitd two dit an tibr th Cou. No othr timony or idnc w prnt rgrding h Rpont' rr

A Te Reode Advi d Sulemea Advi

According to h Rpond, o rc 3, 200 t round :0 m w rng it twoind whn h m ong t to th nrnc to n NS city h ocr t t gk im r i drir' lic nd rgitrton, wic roidd An or itructd todnt hi ngr o w oui t ic r bou tw minut hn

ocr rtud, did ot ny qution rgring trc inctio; rahr, bg toquion ponnt nd h ngr bout tir imiion tu H k i ty dntr throug x or Lo Ang nd if y cm to nid Stt by ir or by o H o n t

O N


8/19

dr s eoe Aer ask esos a addioal een inutes t oe od teRespode o "ove the k ad wa u dd no e i wy e eedd o wait eRspondet d hs s w l t 00 p when IE ocers too he o stody

Whle ty wr watg th espode saw a et twety cs come io e td ay accidet and was close ogh to ea te coversao we th NSA oes a h riversOny o oher dv was stopped addoa qestiong the Respodt "appeareto e o Laio orn nd dd no spe Eis wel Ts dve was reesed appeny cases miy wa wih i ad s wo sal ildn wee cyig Other drivrs o pled io teated aa spoe Eis w d no mirao ustos were ase o te Two women wop io e at a w not ask r ices n restio Wie th Rspodentw watg no oth hice w id g ito te gt ara

B Tsny f th snd

Bey sarized the Respode tesied at od : 00 pm o Mac 3 200, ev a a secrit ateos at is pa o te A The were ee o the e icOcrs ase r idnicto o te Respondet a is assenes d nscted te to gtot of th uc so a tey cod hec t ehicl e Rspodent provided hs drir's licese ocrs too nto athous wty or wet- mites lat on of t ocrsrtd d sted to as e Rspoe estos abou hs igrato satus Rspoddoes no ow wha th or was doin drig te wn or twey-ve mes tat he was nthe ateose Howeer oer did o ask he Respodet y qesos reaed to hs acolao ad te Rspode had a i rvs cense Ar qesog t Respon ouths imigrto staus e of td to t gaeose ore tim passed d th ocrted to as Respondet the stios aout hs migrato sats h espodtsw som o h uestos as o hm but no al h oc tn d th Rspont top te ru ov ad wai Rsodn d s inds wte r os

Wile t Respodnt ad hs eds ee waitg seve ot s pd no adea t ey were le o er e NA ocers rey cecke thm o None o te oher cswre askd o wa

At th end o he hos at aoud :00 pm miato ts cam ad placd theRespodet ad is ds io maton va Th NSA ocs gae t espodn a tet hs trac violaon oly afer h ws aleady in he csody o te gatio ocils e

Respondent d is ieds wee e awy by the IE ofcers a w iutes ae tose osarved

w h1 k ii . kw f b .

4


9/19

oces dd ot re the Respodent's dves lcese to hm; iste the gave o teimmgrion oces we te ed He dd not hve ay contac wt IC oce ee o

te poe or n peson, bee the ICE ocers cme o e im to custod

e Resonet ested tat he seaks a te Eglish an tha hs acial pence sHsnic Lao e was ske w s avit icaes tht he uderstood te coverstonsetwee SA ocers n te ries o othe ehces i he oy speaks a ie Eglsh e sedtat e cod er the convesos ad that he uestood some o wht he he He does notknow wat kind o entcao he ote dves roed to te S ocers e asoacknowege ta he cod no ea the conesatos nse the gateouse

He was asked ow e knew oter ves ule to e gateose by accet Heespoded tat the woud ente d e tu on leave quck

We asked r s date of te Responde tall declne to swe Wen aseagn e sted tat e was bo o J25 990 He cuetly es Mal.

Te Cou sked a ew atoal estos Te Resoet coe tt e led u tothe SA gatehouse by ccet an tat e ws ng at e tme We he ple ee weewo o tee NSA oces The ske hs lcese d nstucte m ad s asseges to getout ofe tuck so t te could sect t Then o te NSA ofces nclung he oce woa te Resonets rve's lcese went sde the gateose

Tent o twen-ve mtes e one ocer ce ot o the gehose d egan ngthe Respodent ad hs ens esos abot graton He aske estos r between seenad ten mntes Durng ta te the oce dd ot meto te wrong tu o stae at eResoe g get a tcet Aer askg hs uesios the ofcer to e Resonent d iseds e hd to oe te truck o one sie ad we ack se te gateouse e wateere ours

No ohe NSA oces came to se to e nl tey ere cued At tat ime theSA oces to them a they wee goig o be set home They eer meioed e wongt o that te Resoent mg e issue a cet Tey t the Resoet is es ntooe o te NSA ucks bt they i ot spe o te whle tey wee te tuck Aroxmaeyee utes aer the SA ocers hadce the Resodet d hs ends CE ocesve Te SA oces ten ook he adcs o an ICE pt erent ndcus o the

Respodet an s ends e NSA ocers lso gave }e esonent cet d o m to sgt The ha ee etioned cet bee that po

wals. A u A = h h

5


10/19

ives cme t the gatese by accdet abt evey ten mntes Oly ne ter vehce wasstpped he ve and passeges were as Hspac, ad the NSA fcers ega as euesns at miga wever, e fces let hem ae te chlde te c egat c Te Respndet acwledged tat ne Hisaic ma was alwed t nd wihein stpped ad quested aut miratin. Te the drives wh wee allwed t passappeed t e whte black.

IV Samn o Law

iatin Jde may receive it evdece any al r rie statemen tat saterial ad releva t y sse i the case d tat as bee prevsly made by he resdet by ay her persn dring ivesgatin, examinati hearg trial 8 CFR 2407(a) Teedea Res Evidence d t aply i mmigan prceedgs d evdet deteaae ited y y de prcess csideatins ke 535 F 3d 243, 256 4t Cr 208)Evidence is eeray admssle f t s prbative ad detay fa e of Veqe 19&N ec 377, 380 (BIA 19) Neveeess in sme cases t may be apppiae t sppessevidece bained viat te Cstut r cean egaty prvsins

A ti t sppress mst be made in wrtig ad be accmpaied y a detaed davitha explans the reasns wy the evdece estn sd be sppessed e o Wog 13I&N ec 820, 822 (BIA 1971). The pary seekn t sppress evidence iialy eas he bde prf ad mst establs ifcie case f ilegaity. e ofg 13 IN Dec 6 BIA1971). T estabish ifcie case te pat mst prvide specic detaled satemets basedp esa wlede; suc alleats ca be geea cclusy aed cse'sstees Id e ofiezche, 17 I&N Dec 503, 505 (BA 198) e ofBce1 I&N Dec 609 BIA 988). Te ppi pvie tesy s ly waated wee tects aleed i he adavt, f te, culd pvide a reasn t sppress e cntested evdencee oBce 1 I&N Dec at 61 Once he mvig pay esabises ai fcie case tatsppessi s wated te gveent "us assme the bde f jsting te me wict bained he evdeceee i (qug e ofBgo 15 &N ec 278, 27 BIA 1975))

Wee te evdece wch e DS sees t rey s subject t supressin, teprceeds wl eeray be emnatedee te ofGci 7 &N ec 319 (BIA 980) Smay weve estabsh remvaily t ideendey taned evence.ee e.g e ofCeve-Toe 21 &N Dec 351, 353 BA 1996) e of elqe 1 I&N Dec 377, 380(BA 986) Ts s because ile secuts ct eet m te a cduct gveen aents tey shd e le "n te same, t a oe, pst at tey wud ave ee f pice er r mscdc ad ccred v. te e 487 US 533, 537 US1988) (qutig v Wii 467 S 43, 43 (1984)) (empas i al)

T x

6


11/19

tenuted Wong Sn v Unted Saes 37 US 47 (196. owever, nivdu cnotgeery nvoe the excuon rue to upre evence obtined i votio of the Fourh

Amemetcvilimmigronproceeg INv Lopez-Mendoza468 S 032 (1984 (dinght te excluo rue i npcbe i cvl deportio proceein) Mate ofSandova, 17I& ec 70 (BI 197.

everthele the Supreme our h le ope e quetio of wheer uppreon g bewrrte civi grion proceedng bed o "egregiou vioio of Fort Amenetor oer ibere t mig rgre otion of ndment e undermie the robve

vue of e evece otined ee opezMenoza 468 .S t 05. Inee evel CircutCou of Appe hve hel or uggete t uc egregou violo w the ppcto ofhe excluiona re in remov proceeng See eg Gonzaez-Rvra v NS 22 F. 441 (9

r 194;AlmdaAaral v Gonzaes461 F3 231, 2362d r 206 Kandaar v Gonzas464 F3 65 7-72 (1t Cir. 206) Marnez Camargo N282 F3d 487 7t Cir 202)Moreover the Secon i rcut hve held t erc or eizue be oley o rce iper e egregou onzaez-Rvera v NS22 F t 144oding tht "op, wic reuted oeyom [n idvdual nc erace, cotitute bd ih egego votio of theFour Amendmen.AedaAaral v onzales 46 F t 27 (notng tht if to w beole o rce "e vton wou be ereou, n e ecluo rue ould

he bo ofw dreg te wheher ocil conduct vote e Fou medmen extreme bo complex However, r puoe of the Reoet Moton to Suppre te

mot reevt receet dcue te circumnce in wich ndividu lwl dete mbe queione regrdng n oee r wic e eting ocer h no reoble upcon Uderthe Supreme ou decion inMeher v Mena nividu ho h bee proper deied roe urpoe m be uetioned bout relte poteti vioto without reobe upicon,

proved e uelte quetiong oe not roog hi o her eeion 54 US. 3 01 2005)eveee queoig reted to e ntil jtcto r op viole e Fouenment if it ureobl roong the eento of te ividu who bee toppe Seeeg Une Saes v Mason, 628 F3d 23 32 (t Cir. 2010)cig/ Cabaes543 S405, 708 2005) For ince "] eizure tht i ute ole by he iteret i iung g ticet to te driver cn become wl if t proonge beyon the time reoblyreuire to compete tht mo.nos v Caalles 543 S t 07 A reult te SuremeCour recognied tt [d]etnng idivdu oley to ver teir mmgrion ttu woul

1 The Furh Circt as n dresse hs precse ssue n pbse recede e argues ta eo Cc's Uned Staes Oscr-Tori 507 F3d 22 ( 200), olds ha he excsoae oes ay mao "even 1Jee eego suc' Osor, e M a L= }m T: . L L ee o A v m pp mv

7


12/19

rise constutionl conces if it polonged the leng of n otewise egitite stop rz v.e Se No 11-182 202 236866 t *6 (US June 25 202 (iting Ilii vCle 543 US. t 407

determining whether detention hs been unesonbly rolonged courts ve indicted

tht the resonbleness of ocer's ction depends on his diligene in omlishing the osesof lful stop "diigene is not present where the police ofe enitive done theposecuion o the tr stop nd emked on noter sustined ourse of investigtion or wherethe unrelted questions onstituted he bulk of the interction between the olice ocer nd thedennt ie Se Digivi, 650 F d 498 508509 (4th Cr 2011 iting ieSev Everet 601 Fd 484 495 (6h Cr 200 Howeer e mmis deys in onduting stop cused b rete qestioning do ot viole te Fouh Aendment See , 628 dt 132 (holding tht one to two minute del cused unrelted questionng i no rise outhmendment isse

Two reet decisons om the outh Circut provide ddition guice in deteminigweter sto s een unesonly poonged in violtion of te Four Aendent In ieSe v Digivi, stte trooer stoped the dendnt r rc violtion ut rther thncompletig drver's liense cek or rting ticket the tf ioltion te ooper roceeedto questo the dendt bout dgs r roxiely ten mnutes 650 d t 509510. Bsedon hs conduct the ourt Ciruit held tht te stte trooer d uneonbl oonged te cstop becuse he di not dilgentl pursue the rc ioltion I t 510 In recing this conlusionthe outh Circuit reected the goveents ontention tht the ten inute dely wse mimi ndtht beuse e over leng of the tr stop ws resonble tere ws no Fourt Amedmentioltio Id t 510511

In contrst in e Se v GuOri, 660 F3d 75 (4th Ci 201 the Forh Circuitun no outh Aendment vioion were n oer bie proonged t sto in orer toveri the vidi of green crd roided te dednt who ws pssenger in the stoppedehe The cout hed tht te ofcer d deonstrte diligee f sever resons Frst theco und tht "cling IC to inquire into the vlidity of the [geen r is nlogous in nwys to how n ofcer routinely runs drver's icense nd registrtion to check thei vliity Idt 769 Second e cort noted t he phone cll ws extremely rie nd did not eonstrte thtthe ocer d "denite bnoed the posection of the tf stop n emrked on notersusine cose of inestigion d hird the cout und tht the initil purpose f the sto ws"still live becuse te ocer hd iitil stopped the vehile to deterine wether the driver d

been rinking nd the ofcer hd not yet ssue hisef tht he dver ws ot ner the inuenceof coho I Fouth the cl to ICE ws " singe brief detour om oerise diligentestigton nto wheter he rive ws impied d eveeless he Fou Ciruitpz[} r c c '" cuc !

8


13/19

dendant's green card simply becase te investgaton i not requie moe time than an odnatrac stop; athe the cus of te inqiy was on te diligence displayed by te oce

B Suppssin f Evidnc Obaind in Vilain f h if Amndmn

Te BA has held tat wth o without a voluntainess issue caes may aise where themanne of acquisition of the evidence is so egegious tat to rely on the evidence oud voate thedue pocess clase of te i Amendment and at in such caes te evdence shold be excludeMatter fTor 1 &N Dec 40 (BA 980 oweve te bren is on te esponent to estabishriafaie case bere DHS wil be cale pon to asse the buren of justiing te manne inwhic it obtained the evience Matter fBrgos 15 &N Dec 28 (BA 95); Maer fWong1 &N Dec 80 (BA 9 f an adavit is submited such that te cts aeged if te cosuppot a bass excluding the evidence in question then te claims mst aso be suppoted bytestimony Matter fBarenas 9 N Dec 09 BA 1988 Vioation of a regato requiremetby a DRS oce can esult in evidence being excude whee te reguation seres to benet the

aien an te violation prejudiced interests o te alien at ere protected by te eguations MatterfGariaFres &N Dec 25 (BA 980 Even in such circumstnces oweve te BA hasmade cea that corective action short o termination of proceedgs soud be ten weevepossible Matter fHernanez &N Dec 24 228 (BA 99)

Suppssin f Evidnc Obaind by Gvnn Ocias Ousid f S

Even were a goveent ocia obtained evidence nay tat evdence wil notnecessily be exclude om evey poceedig i whic it is relevant See e. Unite Staes Janis 428 US 4 (97 Cous ave identie two sitations which the exclsionay rleappies to prevent one paty om using evidence nlawly obtained by ote pty: (I) cases

wee te "zone of pimay inteest of te oending ofcial iclded te proceeding at issue and( cases wee an ofcia o te agecy binging oceeings patcipate in the unaw sechor seizure

Zon of Prmay ntst

Becase te cs of the exclusiona e is to deter e ulaw condct i ode todecide whete illegally obtaie evidence shod be exclde in a pticlar proceeding cortsust detemine whethe te ieihood of deteence outweighs the social costs of excsion SeeezMendza 48 S at 1041 To gage wethe excsion is iey to deter ture orhAmendment vioations a cout sod exaine te motivations of the oending oce d

determine weter te proceeding at issue wa witin his "zone of prmary inteest See Jans 428S at 458 ote wors e court must conside whete the oendg ofce acted wth the of obtg p e

Applg hese idein, he Supreme Cur he ha evece a y

9


14/19

had been alied edeal cii oceedigs in any isances, the Cou obseed that "t]heseia cases that ay the ecusiony ue to a cii oceeding inoe itasoeeigiolatios, a siuatio e need not conside hee/ at 6 he ou e o to eason at stecia a eceen oces ae genealy cused on otaining eidence ciinaoceedings, ad because eidence obtained by a state ciinl oce i ioatio o he FoAendet caot be used in a ciia oceeding, state o deal, state oces e aleadydetered o egagig in Fouh Aendent iolations. d. at 8. As a esult, the Cou und thatexcluding eidence obtained y a state ciina oce o aniss dea cii tx oceedig as"unike to oide signict, ch ess substantial, addiioa deterence. d. a 8

In deerig hethe itasoeeig ioatios o the oth Aendet usti theaication o he excusiony ue, deal couts o aeas hae idetied ieent ctos thatay be eeat, includig () hethe a oceedig is cii o ciia; (2) hethe the oendigoce ad the osecutg ocial are ees o he sae agec; ) hethe ee is aageeent beteen agecies, exlicit o ilicit, to shae ination; ) the existece o a

statutoy egie i hich agecies shae esouces; and () he eatioshi betee the oegoces exetise d the naue o the oceedig hee eidence has been oeed Se .g. Wo Commsoner, 3 F.3d 8, (6th Ci ) oee, the iar cus o the inquiens on hee he oceedig at issue is ithin the "zone o iary inteest te oendigoci See eg. , Grme Commsoner, 82 Fd 286, 20 (th Ci 6) Trado vCommsonr, 68 F2d 07, (2d Ci. 82) Wo 13 d at Indeed, the ecod Cicuihas stated that een ae an, eidece obtaied as a esult o a intesoeeign ioation still aybe suessible i cii oceedings i those cii oceedings l ithi the zone o iay inteest the oeding oce. Trado 68 .2d at 33

Acual Pcpaon

Eidence obaed in ioatio o the Fouth Aendet y y aty, ate o ubic, ayalso be suessed i an ocial o the agency seeking to use eidence aiciated sbstantialli the ulal search o seizue that bought the eidence to light. Se g. , Ltg Untd Stae,38 U 7 () Byar v Uned Sates, 273 U 28 (27). Although oe than "meraticiation is equed, Byar, 273 U. at 32, "a seach is a sech by a] ocial ihe had a hadi it, stg, 8 U.S at 7, and i sustatia aticiatio is eident, "the eect s he sae asthou e ocia] had egaged in the undetaking as one exclusiey his o Bars, 27 USat 33 Moeoe, "[i]t is iateial hethe an] aget oiginated the idea o oied i it hile the

2Later in LpzMndza the Cou und ha te exclsionary rle oes no geely apply n cvlmo oceeg, otta e "tasoei of he oaon lled 468 U.S. at o ackowlegd a y cto, iu "vr ggs e ee y x . , a SU! imigraion poeeds baed on "eeus vl fFh me o h bs mt i i a.


15/19

ech a n oges So ong a he wa n t bee he obect of te each as cometelyaccomshed he mut be deemed to have ticated in t g338 US at 9 Tis is the caeeve : (1) te oce dd not equest the seach; (2 te oce a not the moving ce o heseac ad (3) the othe dvdua ticiatg n the sech wee not motvate by a eie toece the law of the agency hc the oce oke . at 78.

I eteminig whethe an ocial ha subtataly aticiate in a sech "[t]he decvecto the actuaty of a shae b te dea ocial n te tota entese o ecug andelectig evidence ohe than sanctioned mea at 9 an ocial acted a an exe andhad "a vtal she in sg he evdence a te each oceeed he ha subtatially atcaten the earch d

Fdgs of the Court

The Cou a cael cosdeed the tetmoy ad evidece eente as we the

iten agumets eented y both aties Bae o the owing ndings, the Co concudethat the Resondet hs made pmaae ce that uesson wated in thee oceedgsand tat the S ha ed to jt the mae n wich te edece wa obtained As a esltthe Cou w es the evdence obtaned as a esult o the Reondet's aet on March 3,2010 and i tenate thee oceedig

As a iitial mate the Cout d that the Reondent teted cedby His testimoy waetae ausbe eponive an ntenaly conssent need te esondet cadlackoedged cts that coud be condeed detimenta to hi ce No d he S peset atetmony o eience tat wod uneine h cedbt A a eut the Cout concue that theReondent a cebe wine.

e Resoet tetmony seve to am te Cou' eviou nng that theResonent ha made apmaae cae that ueo s waated in ese oceeig Fstte pepondeance o te evdece uggets that te NSA oces o ested hm o Mch 3 1 200 ueasonabl oonge h to n vioaton o the Fou Aement See a 68 3at 132 Altough the Reondent cocede that h intial sto w law t ape tat the NSAoces di not urue digetly e tac sto and intea chose to emak on a aeinvestgatio to te Reondets immgation tu See G Ot, 66 F 3d at 0(emhaizng that a oce who awly tos an indvdua one uoe but abndon theoecuton of the stop to etgate a deent potenta vioato a ueasona ooge theto) Ae the Reonent oe h dve's icene the NSA oce le ith te cene anddid not etu twen o tetve mnutes Whe he oce eted, e did not as aqueso about the Reondents tac volation o even ention te ossbl that the v q i g ) : Rese s c nn 5: \!S dd Qso


16/19

trac volaton "consttted the bul of the teracto beeen hm and the NA ocers SeeDoann 65 F.3d at 5 8-9 Frthermore, te ofcers ad al the nrton e eede toposecute the Respodent r s trafc voaton as soon as the stoped hm, and as a reslt theta pose r the esondents stop as not "stll alve when they estone h abot hsmmgrato stats te to tenyve mtes later. C GonO 66 F3 at 769.

The cts n ths case ndcate that the Respondents stop as uneasonably proonge. Inorer to osecte the trac voato, he NA ocers coud reasonaby have spent tme ta ctaton however, n ths case they not do so ntl arod 5 p, r hors aer the tracsto The ocers coud aso reasobly have spent te ceckg the Resonents rvers lcensend the dentcaton provded b hs end, as ell as checng r any outstndng warts. It shghy mrobable that hs rocess reured ten to tenve mntes, nd H has oered oevdence to ndcate at n hs case t d or even ght take that ong aw enrcement ocalscomete such checs euentl the course o ther day utes, ad as a rest e rocess mstb necess, be expedtousFor nsance, n Diovann, the process of checng a dvers censeand ceckng r otstandng rnts too less than ve mtes See 65 3d at 5. mlarl,n GuonOrtite poce ocer ws abe to detemne ]t 3 secods that no waants wereoutstanng r tree dvduas. 66 3 at 759. Indeed, the Resodents o obseatossggest tha te NA ocers were abe to chec lceses c r the other dvers whostakey came to te gatehouse he sa cars come to the gatehose about oce every ten mntes,and the dvers ere not stoe r a sgncat amount of tmeBase on the ength o tme theocers sent n the gatehose bere retng to as the Resondet estons abot hsmgraton stats, the esodets stop was ueasonably rolonged y at lest en to twenve nutes, n voaton of the Fou Aendmet. See , 65 FJ d at 5 1 - 1 1 olngthat ten mnte dela as ot de iii ad consttted a ou endment voaton).

he Co recognzes that er uestonng he Respodent about hs mgrto status, theNA ofcer ma have establshed reasonable suspcon that the espondent had volated Umgrato law, and at tt pont, the ofcer a ave been jste proogg the sto ren orer to nvestgate rther See e Tey v Ohio 39 U.. 1968) ndeed, based on theResponents ansers, te A ocer ma have had robable cause to etan te Responet r possble volaton of crmal mmgraton a. See id Hoever, there s no ndcaton that theocer had reasonabe suspcon that te Responent a volated mmgrato la bere he entto e gatehose th he Respondents lcense oreover, t appears that he abandoned prosectonof the Respondets trafc stop whe he attemted to establsh reasonable susco of mgraton voato As a result, even f the ocer establshed probable cause to beeve that theResondent had volated mmgraton a twen or ent-ve mutes to the stop, t o ot

sere to ust te neasonabe rologaton of the espodent s sto p to that pont As a resut,the Cot concludes that the espondent as estabshed a pa ae case that hs orhe

n Amendet scrb y h Repe < R z> 13Ama-, F E ' w


17/19

polonged s hat the NSA ofces uld inque int is imigtin saus Whie e ws detained,teny te dves mmied the same ac vlaon tht he hd cmited, and nly ne ohedve wh s als Hispanc, s quesned egadng iigaton status. White d blakdives ee sped biey but wee lowed pss, and no te dve eeived a ctin ing int the NSA cl Ahogh te DHS suggesed tat the the dves my hve come tthe NSA cii oselly, t s imlusble h a ive h ntended to vst the SA udsmy t ond and eave mmeaely e vl, wu ging inse he lit TheResndent cnwledged tht one span man as able t tu nd at the gtehouse wssue; nneteess, the eght the evidence indicaes tat te NSA fces olonged theRespondent's s slely on the basis f hs ce Such eegious lasnce et suppessioneven n civi l emvl poeedings, wee he exclsin ue genely des o py Se Lpeendza468 US t 1 051 .

Last, he Respondent s made a pra fa se that suppessin s popitentthstanng he t that the NSA, nt the DHS stpped e Respondet Suppesson of

evidence obtaned by the NSA is ppe eithe () the "zne pi nteest of e NSAoces inluded the Resonden s emv pceedngs, o (2 y D S oil paicpated inthe Respndents unwl sezue See eg Jan 428 US t 458 tg 338 US t 79

The estimny d evidece pesented ndicates tat ivi immigatin poceedings weewthn he zone f pm nteest f the NSA oces wh stped nd questned heRespondent Se Jan2 S at 45ee a Gr82 F. 3d at 290 Tra689 F2d a 3 W 1 3 F 3 d a 1 93 . Nby, n nal sech sezue by he NSA uld be a iasveegnvilion puoses of these ceedngs See Jn428 U .S a 56 Fuheme, thugh theNSA nd ICE e not p o e sme agency, W 1 3 F 3 d at 94, thee e numes ndatsthat suggest that the NSA oces wh aested te Respndent ee cused on baining evidene

iigaton poeedngs As nted abve, ae expeditiusly competig the Resondent st c sp, the fces engged i n a polonged inquiy int he imigation staus f theRespndent and his passenges e evdence des nt indicate, n hs the DH S suggesed, that theoces sugh to oban evdene egadng he Resndents imigaton sts sme theceeding C Jan28 U.S t 4 t does not ppea that any the pceedings hve beenbught agans te Respndent hs passenges based n he NSA stp Moeve, it s evdent atthe NSA oes itted ntat ith E ad detaned he Resndent d is pssenges tiE oas ved. The NSA ces neve mentoned the Resndent s ac vlon dnge u hs e s detained ate, ey quesioned the Respondent exclusively abu ismmigtion sttus hey then tld he Resonden nd his iends that they ee beng sent hoeTken mulativey, l o f these cos nde ht immigatn poeedngs ee the im, i

nt soe, ntees the SA fcias who rested the Respndent As a esut, suppesson ofevidence in ese ceedngs ud ikely seve dee these fials m te msonuct See 5 no DH a t s e s & U 7;

n R ie


18/19

that tey did so based solel on s race, renderg he vioaton "egeous; d tha cviiation poceedins were ith hei "zone ofpimy interes As a eslt, the buden shso he DHS to "jus] the mae which obtaie he evience . atter f Barcena, 9 I&NDec at 6 fda o testmon om e NSA oces, call los om e NSA gateose, oother eence might have dercu he Respoes cams owee, te HS as resente o

evdece, esimonial o oese, regadng the esponden's ares and deeto3 No a theHS emonstaed at attemped o oan such eience Based o e ecor he Co cannond that the DHS has sed he maer n ch s edence was obaed

Fial, he DHS mainais ta documens oane om he Maad oo VecleAdmaon, includng the espondents applicaio a divers lcense, qali asndepedel otained eience ofhis alieae. See eg ater fCerante-Trre, &N ecat 353 atter fVelaue 9 &N Dec a 38 oee, he Cou is no pesuaded Te eneaule is that all evidence owng om a lawl arest s suppresle ess he coectioneween te wo has "ecome so atenated as o dissipae the tant Wng Sun v nite State 3 7US a 9 Evidence oae om a uly idepedet soce ma be cosdered so hatposectors ae le "in the sme, ot a wre positon at he wold have een n if o po ice eoo miscoduct had occed rray . Unte Stae 87 US a 53 7 owever, it emains he casethat a posecuto co enet om eidece otined a esult of unlawl serch Fostace, nurray Une State poice oces oseed drugs n a pae warehose as a eslof heir ulaw, warratless et and sbsequetl sought a aan The upeme Co eldhat a search conducte pusant o the warant od no a as "a genunel ndependetsorce of eece "f the agens' decision o seek e wan was promted wat ey a seenung the itia enty, or f nmao oaned dung tha ery was esented o e Magstraea aected hs decison o issue he warant at 5

I his case, he DHS ecson o seek he esondes VA ecos "as pomed ythe nawl oseatons of he NSA ofcals See i As a result, aowig he DS to el on theMVA ecords woud leae the DHS i a beter postion as a resu of e lawl conduct of heNSA ocers See at 53 7 The coection eween the MVA recors and the awl conductof the NSA ofcers s ot "so ateate as o dssiate e tant and he Cor eere conclestha the MVA ecods mus be spessed4 See Wn Sun v Uie Sae 31 US a

3The DH S manains tha e Responde's afc sop "may wel av e been wa-and ase o n eseciy requiemens o a ciliy sc as NSA . . owever, he DHS as not sbmie an adavi or any oerevdence o sugges at e prolongaton of he Respode's rafc sop was relae in any way o NSA securiyrequiremens Lkewise DS as cied o no stao regulaoy or subrelaoy auority a would permi he

NSA ocers condc on secuiy reaed grounds e Cous i epenen researc as no uncovere any schauoriy

4e sression o wich was i o ror o a u rh u w wod" m a " T\ N Y J ( 20 l (-J'. g? b 1 v.w S C 55 (20JO); rt disme i nl' grat J J S. C 1 38 (20 ) appear that the fh Circ h aree ts sue. Asen her gdane o bnng preceent, te o ns


19/19

In um, e epnden eimn and adav eai a prima fai cae a Acer vlaed i ur Amendmen rig aed e n hi race i n an er ain evidencer e DHS ue in imirain prceeding r e DH preened evidence ui tecnduc e SA cer A a reu, a evdence ained a a reu er earc iupreile urhermre, e D HS a n preened genuinel ndependen evience eepnden alenage Becaue e evidence n wic e DHS ee re uec uren, ee prceen wi e erinae w preudice S a ofGaia 7 & ec3 (BI 180

VI. de

rered a e epnden Min Suppre and Termnae ere raned

Tee prceedin e erinaed wi prejudce

ae: Ju , 1 lizabt A KeerUned ae mgrain Judge

fr rsons proidd above tha idnc may b surd if t w oerd soJJ du unJa goveconduc, even was gomen hand bere e Jlea a.

Documents

David Antonio Lara-Torres, A094 218 294 (BIA Jan. 28, 2014)