Category Archives: All Cases

Moreno v. United States Customs and Border Protection Officer Mario Unate

Posted on by

Moreno v. United States Customs and Border Protection Officer Mario Unate and the United States of America., No. 3:14-CV-04266-B (N.D. Tex., filed Dec. 3, 2014)

On December 2, 2012 around 5pm, Jorge Moreno Villegas, who is Hispanic, was driving a pick-up truck on a highway outside of Ozona, Texas with a Hispanic colleague as a passenger.  The men were on their way home from work.  Passing in the opposite direction, a Border Patrol agent saw the two men and, turning his vehicle around, squeezed it in between Mr. Moreno’s truck and the vehicle behind it. It is undisputed that Mr. Moreno had not committed any driving violations.  The agent stopped Mr. Moreno and began questioning him and his passenger about their immigration status and citizenship.  The men declined to respond.  The agent then began questioning them in Spanish and ordered Mr. Moreno to exit the truck.  The agent proceeded to handcuff Mr. Moreno and place him in the back of his vehicle.  He did the same for the passenger.

On December 3, 2014, Mr. Moreno filed a complaint against the agent.  He alleges that the agent stopped him without consent or legal authority and was motivated solely by his Hispanic appearance and that of his passenger.  Mr. Moreno brings a claim against the agent for violating the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and an FTCA claim against the United States for false imprisonment and assault.

On February 12, 2015, Defendants moved to dismiss Mr. Moreno’s FTCA claim for false imprisonment on the basis that he had failed to plead facts regarding his immigration status, and that the arrest would have been lawful if he had told the agent that he was not legally present in the United States. Finding that the Border Patrol agent had pulled Mr. Moreno over solely based on his Hispanic appearance, the Court concluded that he lacked reasonable suspicion or probable cause for the stop and thus denied Defendants’ motion.

In late November 2015, the parties filed a joint motion for a stay pending decision on a forthcoming petition for certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court in De la Paz v. Coy et al., which was filed in January 2016 (No. 15-888). 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 January 4, 2018.

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

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

ACLU of San Diego and Imperial Counties v. DHS et al. (PERF Report FOIA)

Posted on by

ACLU of San Diego and Imperial Counties v. US Department of Homeland Security, US Customs and Border Protection, No.  3:14-cv-01272-BTM-JMA (S.D. Cal., filed May 22, 2014)

In 2013, following intense public pressure and a letter from sixteen members of Congress calling upon Customs & Border Protection (CBP) to address numerous incidents involving excessive force, CBP undertook a comprehensive review of its use of force policies and practices. As part of this review, CBP commissioned a report from the Police Executive Research Forum (PERF), a non-partisan law enforcement think tank based in Washington, DC. PERF completed its review and issued a 23-page report that was highly critical of CBP’s use of force policies and practices. CBP refused to release the report or disclose PERF’s recommendations, and indicated that it would not adopt those recommendations.

In February 2014, the ACLU of San Diego’s Border Litigation Project filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request with CBP seeking immediate disclosure of the report. CBP failed to respond to the request, forcing the ACLU to file suit May 22, 2014 to compel disclosure.

The following week, CBP finally released the full report, along with a revised Use of Force Policy Handbook that reflected many of PERF’s recommendations. The parties then stipulated to dismissal of the case on June 19, 2014. The case is now closed.

Counsel: ACLU of San Diego and Imperial Counties

Administrative Complaint to DHS Office of Inspector General and DHS Office of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties on Behalf of Unaccompanied Children Abused by CBP

Posted on by

Administrative Complaint to DHS Office of Inspector General and DHS Office of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties on Behalf of Unaccompanied Children Abused by CBP

On June 11, 2014, the National Immigrant Justice Center, Esperanza Immigrant Rights Project, Americans for Immigrant Justice, Florence Immigrant and Refugee Rights Project, and the ACLU Border Litigation Project submitted an administrative complaint to the DHS Office of Inspector General (OIG) and DHS Office of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties (CRCL) documenting 116 cases of unaccompanied immigrant children who were abused by Border Patrol agents and Customs and Border Protection officials.

Documented from approximately March to May of 2014, the complaints include numerous reports of physical and sexual abuse, as well as verbal abuse involving death threats and racial slurs. Approximately half of the children reported the denial of medical care, including CBP refusal to treat nursing and pregnant minors and infants as young as five months old. Children were forced into stress positions, strip searches, and painful shackling in three-point restraints during transport. Virtually all of the children describe being detained in squalid conditions characterized by extreme cold, overcrowding, and no privacy. More than 80 percent described denial of adequate food and water in CBP custody, including a child whose only available drinking water came from a toilet tank and others who received only frozen or spoiled food and subsequently became ill. Many children reported being separated from other family members, and almost one in three reported that their money and/or personal belongings were confiscated by CBP officials and not returned. Approximately 70 percent reported being held beyond the legally mandated 72-hour period.

For example, M.R., a 15-year-old girl, traveled from Guatemala with her two-year-old son. Both M.R. and her son became sick while in CBP custody, but M.R.’s requests for medical attention were ignored or dismissed for approximately five days, until she and her son were finally taken to a hospital. K.A., a 14-year-old girl, had her asthma medication confiscated by CBP officials and proceeded to suffer multiple asthma attacks in the filthy and overcrowded CBP holding cells. After the first asthma attack, officials threatened that they would punish her if she were faking. H.R., a seven-year-old boy, was severely developmentally disabled and suffering from acute malnourishment when he was apprehended, but CBP held him in custody for approximately five days without any medical treatment. He was eventually hospitalized and underwent emergency surgery.

The complaint notes that many of the same abuses have been documented and reported to DHS for years, but no reforms have been implemented. The complaint further notes that DHS oversight agencies have failed to respond to individual complaints of CBP abuse, conduct investigations, or hold agents accountable, and cites to AIC’s report, No Action Taken, which made similar findings. The complaint calls for the implementation of binding short-term detention standards, independent oversight, uniform complaint procedures, and the delegation of child screening responsibilities to an entity other than CBP, such as United States Citizenship and Immigration Services or the Department of Health and Human Services, among other recommendations.

Counsel: National Immigrant Justice Center | Esperanza Immigrant Rights Project | Americans for Immigrant Justice | Florence Immigrant and Refugee Rights Project | ACLU Border Litigation Project

Contact:  Alexandra Fung | National Immigrant Justice Center |  AFung@heartlandalliance.org

Royce Murray | National Immigrant Justice Center | RMurray@heartlandalliance.org

Complaint by the ACLU to the Department of Homeland Security Denouncing Interior Checkpoint Abuses

Posted on by

Complaint by ACLU of Arizona and ACLU Border Litigation Project to DHS Office of Inspector General and DHS Office of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties Denouncing Interior Checkpoint Abuses

On January 15, 2014, the ACLU of Arizona and the ACLU Border Litigation Project submitted an administrative complaint to DHS Office of Inspector General and DHS Office of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties concerning abuses committed by Border Patrol agents at interior vehicle checkpoints in southern Arizona.  The complaint was submitted on behalf of 15 U.S. citizens, aged 6-69 years old, and detailed 12 incidents in which their rights were violated when they were stopped at 6 checkpoints over a period of a year and a half.

The complaint calls for the investigation of all of the incidents identified; a comprehensive review of all complaints regarding Border Patrol checkpoints over the past five years; a thorough review of Border Patrol checkpoint policies and practices to ensure that operations are in fact limited to briefly verifying citizenship and that agents are receiving guidance regarding the limits of their authority; and a review of all policies and procedures related to service canines, in light of widespread reports of “false alerts” by the dogs.

Counsel: ACLU of Arizona

Contact: James Lyall | ACLU of Arizona | 602.650.1854 | jlyall@acluaz.org

Americans for Immigrant Justice, Inc. v. CBP, et al. (Rio Grande Hieleras FOIA)

Posted on by

Americans for Immigrant Justice, Inc. v. CBP, et al.
No. 1:14-cv-20945 KMW (S.D. Fla. Filed Mar. 13, 2014)

Americans for Immigrant Justice, Inc. (AI Justice) has sued CBP and DHS under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) for their failure to produce any records in response to a request which sought records pertaining to CBP’s short-term detention policies and procedures, particularly as implemented in the Rio Grande Valley (Valley) in Texas.  In 2013, AI Justice interviewed over 100 individuals who had been detained in CBP holding cells in the Valley prior to being transferred to ICE detention in Miami.  These individuals uniformly reported deplorable conditions in the holding cells. They reported that Border Patrol agents refer to the cells as “hieleras,” which is Spanish for “iceboxes.”  The agents use this term because they keep the temperatures in the cells unbearably low, so that the detainees always are extremely cold.  Additionally, the holding cells are overcrowded; have no beds, although most detainees reported being there at least several days, with some being held up to two weeks; have no bathing facilities and few toiletries; and have toilets that are out in the open.  The detainees also complained of being served inadequate food.  The AI Justice FOIA seeks records relating to these holding cells for the period 2008 through 2013.

CBP finally produced some responsive records, and the parties subsequently agreed to dismiss the case by stipulation on September 10, 2015.

Counsel: Americans for Immigrant Justice

Contact: Jennie Santos | jsantos@aijustice.org

Doe v. El Paso County Hospital District, et al.

Posted on by

Doe v. El Paso County Hospital District, et al., No. 3:13-cv-00406  (W.D. Tex., filed Dec. 18, 2013)

Jane Doe sued several CBP officers in their individual capacity (as well as medical personnel and a hospital) after being subjected to six hours of increasingly invasive searches of her body in violation of the United States Constitution.  She seeks both compensatory and punitive damages.

Jane Doe is a 54-year-old United States citizen who, when returning from a visit to Mexico and after having her valid passport swiped, was randomly picked by CBP officers for additional screening.  She was sent to secondary inspection and frisked by two female officers, one of whom put her finger in the crevice of Ms. Doe’s buttocks.  Although no contraband was found, she was placed in a line with others, where a dog allegedly alerted CBP officers that she possessed contraband.  She was not carrying any contraband, however, and thus the alert was either a false one or did not occur.  Thereafter, she was strip-searched by CBP officers and examined with a flashlight.  When this revealed no contraband, the defendant CBP officers transported her in handcuffs to the hospital, where she was forced to take a laxative and monitored while having a bowel movement.  Despite no evidence of contraband, she was then subjected to an x-ray, a physical examination of her vagina and rectum, and a C-T scan.  After each of these exams, defendants insisted on proceeding to the next, more invasive exam despite the fact that none of them produced any evidence.  After the C-T scan, Ms. Doe was informed that she could sign a statement indicating voluntary consent to the searches, in which case CBP would pay the hospital bill; if she refused to sign the consent form, she was told she would be billed for the hospital’s expenses.  She refused to sign and subsequently was billed $5,000.

On December 18, 2013, Ms. Doe filed a complaint against various CBP officers alleging constitutional violations for unreasonable seizure, false arrest, false imprisonment, unreasonable search, and deprivation of due process under Bivens. Her complaint also asserted multiple §1983 claims against the medical facilities and staff involved. The claims against the medical staff and facilities were subsequently settled for $1.1 million. The case against CBP continues.

In July 2015, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint, which the CBP Defendants answered in November 2015.  On June 14, 2016, the District Court accepted the parties’ stipulation of dismissal.  On July 21, 2016, the ACLU announced that CBP had agreed to pay Plaintiff $475,000.

Counsel: Edgar Saldivar, Rebecca Robertson | ACLU of Texas

Laura Schauer Ives, Kristen Love, Jesse Hale | ACLU of New Mexico

Contact: Edgar Saldivar | ACLU of Texas | esaldivar@aclutx.org

Laura Schauer Ives | Kennedy Kennedy & Ives, LLC | LSI@civilrightslawnewmexico.com

Von Der Haar v. Leiba, et al.

Posted on by

Von Der Haar v. Leiba, et al., No. 1:14-cv-247 (S.D. Ind., filed Feb. 19, 2014)

Ms. Christine Von Der Haar sued two CBP officers individually for their role in unlawfully detaining and questioning her at an airport in violation of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution.   Ms. Von Der Haar, a senior lecturer at Indiana University, accompanied a friend to the airport to pick up computer equipment he had shipped separately to the United States.  At the airport, she and her friend, who was in the United States on a valid B1/B2 visa, understood that they were there simply to pick up the computer equipment.  Instead, a CBP officer immediately asked them if they planned to marry.  They were then separated by CBP officers.  Ms. Von Der Haar was twice taken into a back room by the defendant officers, whom she believed were armed and who stood guard at the door and questioned her about her sexual relationship with her friend.  They specifically questioned her about their email communications.  Because the computer equipment shipped by the friend did not include his hard drive, the only way that the CBP officers could have known of the emails was if someone had surreptitiously monitored their communications.  Ms. Von Der Haar seeks compensatory damages for her unlawful detention.

A settlement conference was held on February 6, 2015, and resulted in the parties’ agreement on settlement terms. The case was dismissed with prejudice on April 14, 2015, with each party to bear its own costs.

Counsel: Kenneth J. Falk, Gavin M. Rose | ACLU of Indiana

Contact: Kenneth Falk | ACLU of Indiana | 317-635-4105 | kfalk@aclu-in.org

Muniz-Muniz, et al. v. United States Border Patrol, et al.

Posted on by

Muniz-Muniz, et al. v. United States Border Patrol, et al., No. 09-02865 (N.D. Ohio, filed Dec. 10, 2009); No. 12-4419 (6th Cir.)

Fifteen individuals and two workers’ rights organizations brought this lawsuit to challenge Border Patrol (BP) agents and three local law enforcement agencies and their officers for their systematic racial profiling of Hispanic residents in three Ohio towns.  Plaintiffs have been stopped and questioned about their immigration status while driving, pumping gas, or walking their children home from school.  Plaintiffs allege that BP agents engaged in a pattern or practice of initiating these stops solely on the basis of their Hispanic appearance and did not have any reasonable suspicion or probable cause to suspect that they were present without authorization when they did so.  Additionally, the suit alleges that BP encouraged local law enforcement agencies to profile Hispanics and detain them for BP.

There have been considerable developments in this case since the original complaint was first filed in December 2009.  The parties have completed discovery; Plaintiffs have dismissed without prejudice their claims for monetary damages and claims against the federal agents in their individual capacity; and Plaintiffs have settled their claims against the three local law enforcement agencies for damages, attorney fees, and the adoption of non-discriminatory policing policies.  Additionally, Plaintiffs successfully appealed the lower court’s dismissal for lack of jurisdiction (sovereign immunity) to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals.  In its December 2013 decision, the Sixth Circuit reversed and remanded the district court’s holding, concluding that § 702 of the Administrative Procedures Act conferred jurisdiction upon the court to consider the remaining claims in the suit—all non-monetary in nature—without being limited by the requirements established by § 704 of the Act.

Back in district court, Judge Jack Zouhary denied plaintiffs’ motion to compel discovery related to the use of racial slurs by Border Patrol. The court also refused to let plaintiffs add two Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) cases to the suit, which had been separately filed against the United States regarding the conduct of BP agents.

On February 24, 2016, Judge Zouhary found in favor of the defendants on all claims. The court held that plaintiffs failed to prove a Fifth Amendment violation of equal protection; that anecdotal evidence proffered by plaintiffs failed to amount to a “pattern or practice” of racially profiling Hispanics; and that Border Patrol agents’ use of the word “wetbacks” merely represented “isolated instances of poor judgment.” Furthermore, Judge Zahoury held that plaintiffs failed to establish a Fourth Amendment violation of the right against unreasonable search and seizure. Despite plaintiffs’ testimony that they believed that they were unable to leave during police interrogations, the court found that, in all cases, the encounters either did not constitute seizures or were lawful interrogations or seizures based on reasonable suspicion or probable cause.

Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the Sixth Circuit on April 19, 2016. The Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision on August 24, 2017.

Press:

Counsel: Advocates for Basic Legal Equality, Inc. | Murray & Murray Co., L.P.A.

Contact: Mark Heller | ABLELAW | 419.255.0814 | mheller@ablelaw.org

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