Bressi v. Napier, No. 4:18-cv-00186-DCB (D. Ariz., amended complaint filed July 2, 2018)
On July 2, 2018, Plaintiff Terry Bressi filed an amended complaint against Pima County Sheriff Mark Napier and other county defendants alleging that they violated his First and Fourth Amendment rights when Sheriff’s deputies arrested him at a Border Patrol checkpoint in April 2017 after refusing to answer Border Patrol’s citizenship questions. Bressi has also lodged a federal notice of claim against the Border Patrol for the same incident.
Bressi, who has traveled the same route since 1993 from his Tucson home to his rural worksite west of Tucson, has contended many times with the abuses and excesses of the Border Patrol. For example, Mr. Bressi previously sued another local police agency when it illegally detained him at a checkpoint erected at the direction of the Border Patrol. See Bressi v. Ford, 575 F.3d 891, 894 (9th Cir. 2009). On April 10, 2017, Bressi was returning home from work when he passed through the Border Patrol checkpoint. Consistent with his personal opposition to the existence of interior checkpoints, Bressi refused to answer the Border Patrol’s questions. Shortly after, the Pima County Sheriff’s deputy – who was stationed at the checkpoint under a federal grant program called Operation Stonegarden – took over the interaction with Bressi and insisted that he answer the Border Patrol’s questions. Eventually, the deputy arrested Bressi and placed him in handcuffs, purportedly because Bressi had “obstructed” the highway.
The lawsuit alleges that the deputy retaliated against Bressi for exercising his First Amendment right not to answer Border Patrol’s questions. Additionally, the lawsuit alleges that the pervasive presence of local law enforcement at the Border Patrol checkpoint materially altered the nature of the checkpoint itself, rendering the whole checkpoint unconstitutional under the long-standing Fourth Amendment principle that permanent checkpoints are permitted only for limited immigration-related purposes and not for the “general interest in crime control.” The federal defendants answered the complaint on October 2, 2019. The Pima County defendants have moved to dismiss the case and as of October 2019, those motions are pending.
- Notice of Claim Pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-821.01
- First Amended Complaint
- Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss
- Opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss
Counsel: Ralph E. Ellinwood PLLC
Contact: Ralph E. Ellinwood | Ralph E Ellinwood Attorney at Law PLLC| firstname.lastname@example.org
- A Cosmic Legal Collision: The Engineer vs the Border Patrol
- Letter to the Editor [from Plaintiff]: Stonegarden was Hardly a Benefit to Public Safety