Author Archives: American Immigration Council

Vargas Ramirez v. United States of America

Posted on by

Vargas Ramirez v. United States of America, No. 2:13-cv-02325 (W.D. Wash., filed Dec. 27, 2013)

Mr. Gustavo Vargas Ramirez brought this Federal Tort Claims Act lawsuit against the United States for false arrest, false imprisonment, negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress, and abuse of process arising from his unjustified arrest at the hands of Border Patrol (BP).

On June 23, 2011, Mr. Vargas was stopped by the Anacortes, Washington police, allegedly for failing to use his turn signal. He provided a valid license, registration, and proof of insurance. Despite this, the police officer called BP to check on Mr. Vargas’s immigration status. After failing to find any immigration or criminal history on Mr. Vargas, the BP agent asked the police officer to allow him to speak to Mr. Vargas directly, but Mr. Vargas refused to answer any of the agent’s questions without talking to a lawyer. The agent then instructed the police officer to detain Mr. Vargas, despite lacking any legal basis for doing so. Based on this request, the police officer transported Mr. Vargas, in handcuffs, to the city jail, where he waited in a cold prison cell until a BP agent arrived and took him to a nearby BP station. Once at the station, Mr. Vargas continued to refuse to answer any questions without a lawyer. The agents on duty ignored his efforts to assert his rights and attempted to pressure him into signing various documents without first explaining their contents to him. Mr. Vargas was eventually transferred to the Northwest Detention Center, where he was detained for almost ten weeks. His case was subsequently administratively closed.

The BP report of what transpired on June 23, 2011 contains blatant misrepresentations that purport to provide a legal justification for BP’s decision to have Mr. Vargas arrested, showing the agents involved knew their conduct was unlawful. The report wrongly states, for instance, that the Anacortes police officer called BP for help with interpretation issues and that a BP agent arrived at the scene of the traffic stop, where he took custody of Mr. Vargas after the latter admitted that he had been born in Mexico. Such an interaction never happened.

Mr. Vargas first filed formal administrative complaints against both the Anacortes Police Department and Border Patrol in mid 2013. He settled his claims against the Anacortes Police Department without going to trial. His complaint against Border Patrol went unanswered, however, and Mr. Vargas filed a complaint in the U.S. district court for the Western District of Washington seeking damages for the violations BP inflicted upon him. Following Mr. Vargas’s defeat of the government’s motion to dismiss or for summary judgment, the parties undertook discovery, after which they filed cross motions for summary judgment. On March 23, 2015, the district court entered an order granting Mr. Vargas’s motion for summary judgment with respect to the claims of false arrest and false imprisonment, and dismissed the secondary claims. The parties reached a settlement, agreeing to damages in the amount of $10,000. As a result of the settlement the district court issued a final order dismissing the claim on March 31, 2015.

Press: 

Counsel: Northwest Immigrant Rights Project | Bean Porter Hawkins PLLC

Contact: Matt Adams | NWIRP | 206.957.8611 | matt@nwirp.org

Ramirez-Rangel, et al. v. Kitsap County, et al.

Posted on by

Ramirez-Rangel, et al. v. Kitsap County, et al., No. 12-2-09594-4 (Wash. Super. Ct., filed Jan. 31, 2012, decided Aug. 16, 2013)

Three individuals brought this lawsuit against Kitsap County and two Kitsap County deputy sheriffs for false arrest and violations of the Washington State Constitution.

Plaintiffs Samuel Ramirez Rangel, Leticia Gonzalez Santiago, and Jose Solis Leon were harvesting shellfish one February evening in 2010 when two Kitsap County deputy sheriffs noticed them speaking Spanish. The deputies waited for the group to exit the beach and followed their truck, eventually pulling them over to allegedly investigate a defective headlight and their shellfish licenses. Although the deputies resolved all issues relating to the headlight and shellfish, they prolonged the traffic stop to question the plaintiffs about their immigration status. The deputies proceeded to call U.S. Border Patrol to inform them they had stopped some individuals they suspected of having immigration issues, offering to detain them until Border Patrol could arrive. The deputies then called for additional law enforcement assistance and, after ordering the plaintiffs to sit in their truck, the officers kept the truck surrounded until Border Patrol agents arrived at the scene.

The court dismissed the false arrest claim but held that local law enforcement officers violate Article 1, Section 7 of the Washington State Constitution when they prolong a detention to question individuals about their immigration status, citizenship status, and/or country of origin. The court clarified that even when officers have reasonable suspicion or probable cause to seize someone for a legitimate reason unrelated to immigration enforcement, they are constitutionally forbidden from extending a detention to interrogate that detainee as to her or his immigration status once the officers have decided not to arrest that person for the original offense.

Press:

Counsel: Northwest Immigrant Rights Project | American Civil Liberties Union of Washington State | Stoel Rives LLP

Contact: Matt Adams | NWIRP | 206.957.8611 | matt@nwirp.org

Frias v. Torrez et al.

Posted on by

Daniel Frias v. Torrez et al., No. 3:12-CV-1296-B (N.D. Tex., filed Apr. 26, 2012) sub nom. De la Paz et al. v. Coy et al., No. 15-888 (U.S.)

Daniel Frias was driving a four-door pick-up truck on a highway outside of Abilene, Texas with a white colleague as a passenger when a Border Patrol agent stopped his vehicle.  It is undisputed that he had not committed any driving violations.  The Border Patrol agent justified the stop solely on the basis that he allegedly saw shapes in the back seat that appeared to be bodies, and that the route was a known one for smuggling.  Frias disputed that there was anything in the back seat at all.  Upon being stopped, Frias stated that the agent asked him for identification, that he produced his valid New Mexico driver’s license and that he was handcuffed almost immediately after this.  His white colleague was asked for his driver’s license and then not asked any additional questions.  Frias claims that the stop violated the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and was motivated solely by his Hispanic appearance, and also that the agent committed the torts of false arrest and assault.

On October 31, 2013, the district court denied the government’s motion for summary judgment with respect to the constitutional claims against the individual Border Patrol agent and the tort claims against the United States.  The court found that the dispute as to the facts prevented it from granting the government’s motion.  Specifically, if there was nothing in the back seat of the truck, as Frias maintained, then the stop – which took place hundreds of miles from the border and involved no other suspicion of wrongdoing – would not have been justified under the Fourth Amendment.  For similar reasons, the court could not grant the United States’ motion for summary judgment on the false imprisonment and assault tort claims.

On December 30, 2013, the defendant Border Patrol agent filed an interlocutory appeal to the Fifth Circuit. The appeal raised two issues:

  1. Whether the district court improperly extended to a “new context” the remedy for unconstitutional law enforcement conduct first recognized in Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971); and
  2. Whether the agent was entitled to qualified immunity from suit.

The parties fully briefed these issues. The National Immigration Project of the National Lawyers’ Guild and the American Immigration Council submitted an amicus brief addressing the Bivens issue. Amici argued that the claims fell within Bivens’ core holding and purpose; the Immigration and Nationality Act was not a remedial or compensatory statute; there were no special factors counseling against a Bivens remedy in a case such as this; and the defendant’s position would create virtual immunity for unconstitutional conduct by immigration agents.

After hearing oral argument on September 3, 2014, the Fifth Circuit – in a consolidated opinion with De La Paz v. Coy – reversed the District Court on May 15, 2015.  The court held that a Bivens action was not available to redress the Border Patrol’s violation of the Fourth Amendment rights of an undocumented noncitizen. Notwithstanding the traditional Fourth Amendment claim presented, the court found that it presented a new “context” for a Bivens claim and refused to extend Bivens to this new context.  The court found that removal proceedings provided an alternative remedial scheme for the plaintiff. It also found that special factors cautioned against such an extension.

The Fifth Circuit, sua sponte, took a vote as to whether to rehear the case en banc. Only four judges voted in favor and on October 14, 2015, the court denied rehearing en banc. Three judges dissented from this denial in a strongly worded opinion which emphasized that this case fell squarely within the holding of Bivens.

In December 2015, the parties filed a joint motion for a stay pending decision on the then forthcoming petition for certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court in both the instant case and De la Paz v. Coy et al.  The petition was filed in January 2016 (No. 15-888).

Briefing on the petition for writ of certiorari ended on June 1, 2016. On June 26, 2017, the Supreme Court denied the petition for writ of certiorari in De la Paz. Following the parties’ subsequent stipulation of dismissal, the district court dismissed the case on February 15, 2018.

Counsel: Mayer Brown LLP and De Mott, McChesney, Curtright & Armendáriz, LLP

Contact: David Armendáriz | 210.534.1844 | davida@dmcausa.com

Leonel Ruiz o/b/o E.R. v. U.S.

Posted on by

Leonel Ruiz o/b/o E.R. v. U.S., No. 1:13-cv-01241 (E.D.N.Y., filed Mar. 8, 2013)

On March 11, 2011, E.R., a four-year-old U.S. citizen, was detained by Customs and Border Protection following her arrival at Dulles Airport. E.R. was returning home to New York from a vacation in Guatemala with her grandfather, when her flight was diverted from JFK to Dulles airport due to bad weather. While E.R. was admitted with her U.S. passport, her grandfather was directed to secondary inspection due to an issue with his immigration paperwork. CBP detained E.R. with her grandfather for the next 20 plus hours, gave her only a cookie and soda during the entire time, and provided her nowhere to nap other than the cold floor.

Although CBP officers had the phone number of E.R’s parents, they failed to contact them for nearly 14 hours, and repeatedly refused her grandfather’s requests to be allowed to call them. E.R.’s father was frantic with worry this entire time. When CBP eventually did contact E.R.’s father, the officer promised to send E.R. to JFK as soon as arrangements could be made to do so, but also asked for identifying information about her parents. Hours later, CBP called again, and this time claimed that CBP could not return E.R. to “illegals.” The CBP officer gave E.R.’s father an hour to decide whether she should be sent back to Guatemala or to an “adoption center” in Virginia. Fearing that he would otherwise lose custody of his daughter, E.R.’s father decided that the only viable option was for her to return to Guatemala. CBP officers put E.R. and her grandfather on the next flight to Guatemala. E.R. was finally able to return home nearly three weeks later, after her father hired a local attorney to fly to Guatemala to retrieve her.

Back in the United States, E.R. was diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder by a child psychologist, who concluded that the PTSD was a result of her detention, her separation from her parents, and her perception that she had been deported because her father did not pick her up from the airport. E.R.’s father seeks damages on her behalf for her unlawful treatment.

In March 2013, the girl’s father filed a lawsuit on behalf of his daughter alleging that CBP officers at Dulles Airport in Virginia unlawfully detained a U.S. citizen child for more than twenty hours, deprived her of contact with her parents, and then effectively deported her to Guatemala.  On October 30, 2013, the government moved to dismiss the case on the basis that the actions of the CBP officers fell within the discretionary function exception of the FTCA, and that the court thus lacked subject matter jurisdiction. Alternatively, the government alleged that the case should be dismissed because the plaintiff had failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. The government also moved to transfer the case to the Eastern District of Virginia.  Counsel for the girl’s father opposed the motions.

On September 18, 2014, the court found that the CBP officers’ actions did not fall within the discretionary function exception. The court also found that CBP’s treatment of the girl violated the settlement agreement in Flores v. Reno regarding the detention of minors and CBP’s internal policies promulgated to comply with the Flores agreement.  However, the court granted the government’s request to change venue and transferred the case to the Eastern District of Virginia. In June 2015, the case settled for $32,500. Because the case involved a minor, the Court reviewed and approved the final settlement.

Press:

Counsel: Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton, LLP | American Immigration Council

Contact: Melissa Crow | AIC | 202.507.7523 | mcrow@immcouncil.org

FTCA Administrative Complaints of Four Women Denouncing Hieleras

Posted on by

FTCA Administrative Complaints of Four Women Denouncing Hieleras (filed Mar. 12, 2013)

On various dates in early 2013, four women were apprehended at the United States Texas border by Customs and Border Protection (CBP) agents.  After being apprehended, they were taken by CBP to what the agents called a “hielera,” which is Spanish for “icebox” or “icemaker.”  The hieleras are holding cells which agents often maintain at very low temperature.  The women all describe cells in which dozens of detainees were crowded together.  The cells had no beds, no chairs and each had only a single toilet and sink sitting in the open in the corner.  The women were kept in the cells for as long as 13 days.

The cells were so cold that the women’s fingers and lips turned blue.  They often were fed only one meal a day consisting of a single sandwich, which frequently was frozen. They received nothing to drink other than water, which they had to retrieve from the sink, using their hands or a single cup shared by everyone in the cell.  They were not given blankets or pillows.  Sleeping on the freezing cold floor was next to impossible.  Pregnant women and women with children were present in the cells.

Two of the women are diabetics whose prescriptions were confiscated at the time they were apprehended and never returned.  Both suffered medical problems after their medication was taken from them.  One of them passed out twice and finally was taken to the local hospital’s emergency room.

None of the women were afforded access to a shower or a bath.  Two of them had their menstrual cycles while detained but had no access to a bathroom for bathing.  There was no soap, no change of underwear, and no toothbrushes or toothpaste.

CBP agents regularly asked each of the women to sign documents printed in English, which the women could not read and did not understand.  Agents threatened that they would be kept in the holding cell until they signed these documents.  These agents also referred to them in demeaning ways, including calling them “bitches.”  Only one of the women was asked whether she had a fear of returning to her country of origin, as required, though several of them do.  Eventually, most of the women signed the documents in order to end their suffering in the cold holding cells.  Though they did not understand it at the time, they had signed expedited removal orders. Each of the women was subsequently transferred to a Texas jail and then to a detention facility in Florida while awaiting removal.  All the women filed administrative complaints for damages against the United States for the suffering they endured at the hands of CBP agents. One of these women, Alba Quinonez Florez, subsequently sued the U.S. government in federal court based on the abuses described above.

The government failed to respond to the administrative complaint within the six-month deadline. None of the claimants decided to file a federal complaint.

Counsel: Americans for Immigrant Justice

Contact: Jennie Santos | AI Justice | jsantos@aijustice.org

Press:

FTCA Administrative Complaint Regarding ‘Citizenship Checkup’ of US Citizen

Posted on by

FTCA Administrative Complaint Regarding ‘Citizenship Checkup’ of US Citizen (filed Mar. 12, 2013)

Lucy Rogers is a naturalized American citizen of Mexican descent. She lives in Chateauguay, NY with her husband and infant son. In her work as a medical interpreter for immigrant farmworkers, a program funded by the federal government, Ms. Rogers travels to New York farms to pick up farmworkers, drive them to medical appointments, and serve as their interpreter.

On December 28, 2011, Ms. Rogers was driving toward the U.S./Canada border with two farmworkers of apparent Latino descent when a Border Patrol agent pulled her over without any reasonable suspicion. The agent told Ms. Rogers that he was conducting a “citizenship checkup” and asked her and her passengers whether they were U.S. citizens. Ms. Rogers replied that she was a U.S. citizen and provided the agent with her New York State drivers’ license. Because the two farmworkers traveling with her were unable to immediately provide proof of their immigration status, Ms. Rogers was arrested and searched, under the suspicion that she was trafficking undocumented immigrants in an attempt to escape inspection upon entry into the U.S.

After several hours of being interrogated in a nearby station, CBP employees agreed that there was no proof that Ms. Rogers was engaged in trafficking. Yet they insisted that Ms. Rogers provide them with the GPS device that she kept in her car. She understood that, if she refused to do so, she would remain indefinitely in CBP custody. Consequently, she felt compelled to give it to them. Ms. Rogers did not receive it back for more than seven months. Now, after this frightening and humiliating experience, Ms. Rogers feels afraid that living near the border means that she could be stopped at any time without any reason— simply because of her race and ethnicity.

Ms. Rodgers filed an administrative complaint under the Federal Tort Claims Act.  CBP denied the complaint. The case is now closed.

Press:

Counsel: New York Civil Liberties Union | Kathryn O. Greenberg Immigration Justice Clinic, Benjamin N. Cardozo Law School

Contact: NYCLU Press Office | 212-607-3372
Rebecca Engel | rengel@nyclu.org
Betsy Ginsberg | betsy.ginsberg@yu.edu

Hernandez-Carranco v. U.S.A., et al.

Posted on by

Hernandez-Carranco v. U.S.A., et al., No. 3:12-CV-05186 (N.D. Tex., filed Dec. 19, 2012)

Josue Hernandez-Carranco, traveling with his father and a friend, stopped in the parking lot of a gas station to use the restroom when two Border Patrol (BP) agents approached and stood in front of the doors of his truck. The agent on Mr. Hernandez-Carranco’s side opened his door, grabbed him by his arm, and, in Spanish, demanded his papers. Mr. Hernandez-Carranco replied in English that he had papers, and showed the agent his valid Texas driver’s license. In Spanish, the agent told him that this was insufficient. He then handcuffed Mr. Hernandez-Carranco, pulled him out of the truck, and placed him in a BP van with several other men. Mr. Hernandez-Carranco was cold, but the agent refused his request to grab his jacket before he was put in the van.

Once on the road, an agent drove the van so recklessly that the men feared for their safety. When the agents finally agreed to a rest stop, they handcuffed the men in pairs and took them out of the van on the side of the road. The BP agents taunted and humiliated one man for his discomfort at having to relieve himself in this situation.

Mr. Hernandez-Carranco seeks damages for his unlawful seizure. At the time of arrest, the agents lacked any reasonable suspicion that Mr. Hernandez-Carranco, his father, or his friend had committed an unlawful act or were in the country illegally. They were over 200 miles from the border, had broken no traffic laws, and had taken no evasive or otherwise unusual action. The BP agents interrogated and arrested Mr. Hernandez-Carranco based solely on his Hispanic appearance.

On January 28, 2014, the parties met for a settlement conference, where they expressed interest in engaging in non-binding mediation with a private mediator or a settlement conference to be conducted by the Magistrate Judge. On April 1, 2014, both parties filed a stipulation of dismissal of all claims.

Counsel: De Mott, McChesney, Curtright & Armendáriz, LLP

Contact: David Armendáriz | 210.534.1844 | davida@dmcausa.com

Garcia De La Paz v. Coy et al.

Posted on by

Garcia De La Paz v. Coy et al., No. cv-00957 (W.D. Tex., filed Oct. 9, 2012) sub nom. Garcia de la Paz et al. v. Coy et al.  No. 15-888 (U.S.)

Alejandro Garcia De La Paz was riding home from work in Texas in the passenger seat of his co-worker’s truck, with two other coworkers riding in the backseat, when they were pulled over by two Border Patrol vehicles using their emergency flashers. The two agents approached the truck on both sides of the car and, without explaining the reason for the stop, asked whether the passengers were U.S. citizens. Upon hearing Mr. Garcia’s answer, the agent opened Mr. Garcia’s door, grabbed him by the arm, pulled him out of the truck, and brought him to his patrol car.

At the time of the stop, the agents were not patrolling the U.S. border and had no reasonable suspicion that the driver of the car, Mr. Garcia, or the other two passengers had violated or were violating any law. The agents also had no reason to believe that Mr. Garcia and his co-workers were noncitizens, had recently come from a border area, or were in violation of any immigration law. Instead, the agents stopped Mr. Garcia and his co-workers solely because of their Hispanic appearance.

Mr. Garcia seeks damages from the individual agents for the violation of his constitutional right to be free from unlawful searches and seizures, and from the United States for his unlawful arrest by the agents.

The district court denied the individual agents’ request for qualified immunity. The agents appealed this denial of qualified immunity to the Fifth Circuit, raising two issues:

  1. Whether the district court improperly extended to a “new context” the remedy for unconstitutional conduct by a federal agent first recognized in Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971); and
  2. Whether the agents were entitled to qualified immunity from suit.

The parties fully briefed these issues. The National Immigration Project of the National Lawyers’ Guild and the American Immigration Council submitted an amicus brief addressing the Bivens issue. Amici argued that the plaintiff’s claims fell within Bivens’ core holding and purpose; the Immigration and Nationality Act did not serve as an alternate remedial scheme that would compensate him for his injuries; there were no special factors counseling against a Bivens remedy in a case such as this; and the defendants’ position would create virtual immunity for unconstitutional conduct by immigration agents.

The Fifth Circuit heard oral argument on September 3, 2014. On May 15, 2015, it reversed the district court, holding instead that a Bivens action was not available to redress the Border Patrol agents’ violation of the Fourth Amendment rights of an undocumented noncitizen. Notwithstanding the traditional Fourth Amendment claim presented , the court found that it presented a new “context” for a Bivens claim. It refused to extend Bivens to this new context, finding that removal proceedings provided an alternative remedial scheme for the plaintiff. It also found that special factors cautioned against such an extension.

The Fifth Circuit, sua sponte, took a vote as to whether to rehear the case en banc. Only four judges voted in favor and on October 14, 2015, the Court denied rehearing en banc. Three judges dissented from this denial in a strongly worded opinion which emphasized that this case fell squarely within the holding of Bivens.

In January 2016, de la Paz filed a petition for writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court (No. 15-888).  Briefing on the petition for writ of certiorari ended on June 1, 2016.  The petition was initially distributed to the Court for its June 16, 2016 conference, but was rescheduled on June 6, 2016. On June 26, 2017, the Supreme Court denied the petition.

Counsel: Mayer Brown LLP and De Mott, McChesney, Curtright & Armendáriz, LLP

Contact: David Armendáriz| 210.534.1844 | davida@dmcausa.com

Mireles v. Riano, et al.

Posted on by

Mireles v. United States Customs and Border Protection Agent Riano in his individual capacity and the United States of America, No. 1:13-cv-00197 (S.D. Tex., filed Oct. 21, 2013)

Laura Mireles brought this lawsuit against the United States and a CBP officer for violations of her Fourth Amendment rights as well as Texas state law after the officer used unwarranted force and physical abuse before arresting her without any justification at the U.S.-Mexico border.

Ms. Mireles is small in stature, approximately 5’1” tall and 100 pounds, and has a visible malformation of her hands and feet. She has worked at a store on the U.S. side of an international bridge in Brownsville, near the CBP inspection station, since 2005. On November 5, 2012, Ms. Mireles crossed to the Mexican side of the bridge for roughly 15 minutes to pick up keys to lock the store. After she closed the store, CBP Officer Riano stopped Ms. Mireles and searched her car. Ms. Mireles did not interfere with the search and no illegal items were found. Yet the officer became agitated and reacted violently when Ms. Mireles asked him about his search of her handbag. He grabbed her with both hands and threw her onto the ground with such force that her jeans ripped open at the knee and she suffered a large knee wound as well as several cuts and abrasions on her elbows; the officer put his full weight—roughly double that of her own—on Ms. Mireles’s small frame and handcuffed her so tightly that the fire department later had to be summoned to cut the handcuffs from her wrists. Ms. Mireles, who was understandably confused, scared, and crying, asked the agent to explain what was happening. He responded by threatening to hit her if she didn’t “shut up.” After being treated by paramedics for her injuries, Ms. Mireles was released from custody without being charged with an offense.

Ms. Mireles first filed a formal administrative complaint with CBP in March 2013, seeking damages for the serious harm she suffered as a result of Officer Riano’s unlawful actions. That complaint was denied a little more than a month later without explanation. Ms. Mireles subsequently filed suit in federal district court, alleging claims against the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) and constitutional claims against Officer Riano pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971).

The United States moved to dismiss, arguing that it had not waived sovereign immunity under the FTCA based on the customs-duty exception set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 2860(c). Officer Riano sought dismissal based on qualified immunity. Adopting the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, the Court found that it lacked jurisdiction to consider the FTCA claims because the United States has not waived sovereign immunity under the customs-duty exception for “[a]ny claim arising in respect of …the detention of any goods, merchandise, or other property by any officer of customs or excise or any other law enforcement officer.” 28 U.S.C. § 2860(c), The Court denied Officer Riano’s Motion to Dismiss, finding that Riano had “violated Mireles’s established constitutional rights,” and was thus not entitled to qualified immunity.

On May 3, 2016, the district court stayed the case pending the outcome of Simmons v. Himmelreich, a Supreme Court case dealing with whether the dismissal of a claim against the U.S. on the basis of an FTCA exception effectively bars separate Bivens actions against individual federal employees because of the FTCA’s judgment bar provision. The Supreme Court unanimously held in June 2016 that the FTCA’s judgment bar provision does not apply, and thus does not affect the claims against the individual defendants. On July 29, 2016, a magistrate judge issued a report and recommendation finding Defendant Riano was not entitled to qualified immunity and recommending the denial of his motion for summary judgment. On September 15, 2016, the court adopted the report and recommendation, and in October of 2016, the parties stipulated to dismiss the case.

Press:

Counsel: ACLU of Texas | Law Office of Gilberto Hinojosa & Associates, P.C. | University of Texas School of Law Civil Rights Clinic

Contact: Tom Hargis | ACLU of Texas | 832.291.4776 | media@aclutx.org (press)
Edgar Saldivar | ACLU of Texas | esaldivar@aclutx.org (legal)

Sanchez, et al. v. U.S. Office of Border Patrol, et al.

Posted on by

Sanchez, et al. v. U.S. Office of Border Patrol, et al. No. 12-00735 (W.D. Wash., filed Apr. 26, 2012)

In this class action, three U.S. citizen plaintiffs challenged U.S. Border Patrol’s practice of routinely stopping vehicles on Washington’s Olympic Peninsula and interrogating occupants about their immigration status based solely on the occupants’ racial and ethnic appearance, in violation of their constitutional rights. On behalf of themselves and others who have been subjected to similar stops, the plaintiffs asked the court to issue an injunction ordering Border Patrol to halt all such stops until its agents on the Peninsula have received training and demonstrated, through testing, that they understand the constitutional and other legal requirements necessary to stop and detain an individual.

In September 2013, the plaintiffs and Border Patrol reached a settlement in which Border Patrol acknowledged that its agents on the Olympic Peninsula must base vehicle stops away from the border on reasonable suspicion that an individual may be involved in violating the law.

All Port Angeles Border Patrol agents will be required to receive an additional training in Fourth Amendment protections, including those related to vehicle stops. The Fourth Amendment prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures and requires any warrant to be judicially sanctioned and supported by probable cause. In addition, for 18 months, Border Patrol will provide reports to plaintiffs’ attorneys documenting all stops in the Olympic Peninsula. Finally, Border Patrol also committed to complying with judicial decisions setting limits on stops and interrogations and to abiding by Department of Homeland Security guidance on the use of race or ethnicity in performing its duties.

Press:

Counsel: Northwest Immigrant Rights Project | American Civil Liberties Union of Washington State | Perkins Coie LLP

Contact: Matt Adams | NWIRP | 206.957.8611 | matt@nwirp.org