Castellanos v. United States

Castellanos v. United States, No. 18-CV-2334-JM-BLM (S.D. Cal., filed Oct. 10, 2018)

In this case, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) agents’ excessive use of force during a routine inspection at Calexico Port of Entry left a seventy-five-year-old man in the hospital with a fractured elbow and displaced ribs. On December 17, 2017, Jesus and Raquel Castellanos, at the time seventy-five and seventy-one years old, and their adult son, Marco Castellanos, were in secondary inspection at the Calexico Port of Entry, when a CBP officer began yelling at Marco for using his cellphone. Marco explained he was responding to a message, put his cellphone away, and asked the CBP officer to bring a supervisor, but the CBP officer preceded to put Marco in a chokehold and a group of officers gathered and slammed him against a fence.

Jesus Castellanos pleaded with the officers to let his son go and stop assaulting him. CBP Officer Hedlund shoved Mr. Castellanos, threw him over a bench, and punched him in the chest and ribs multiple times. As Mr. Castellanos lay face down on the bench, Officer Hedlund continued to put all his weight on Mr. Castellanos and twisted his elbow with such force that it was fractured. Mr. Castellanos also suffered multiple displaced ribs from the assault.

Officer Hedlund and two other CBP officers took Mr. Castellanos to a holding cell and when he told them his arm had been injured, Officer Hedlund further bent his arm.  Mr. Castellanos was able to get the attention of a supervisor who called an ambulance that arrived thirty minutes later and took him to the hospital. While her husband was being assaulted and detained, Mrs. Castellanos, who suffers from dementia, pleaded for the officers to stop and became confused and distraught as CBP officials did not explain to her where they had taken her husband or son.

On January 12, 2017, Mr. and Mrs. Castellanos filed administrative complaints under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), but received no response. On October 10, 2018, they brought this action seeking damages under Bivens and the FTCA. The second amended complaint alleges Officer Hedlund is liable for Fourth Amendment violations under Bivens. The complaint further seeks to hold the United States liable under the FTCA for assault, battery, negligence, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and false imprisonment under the FTCA.

In February 2020, the district court denied the government’s motion for summary judgment. After the summary judgement motion was denied, the Castellanos family reached a settlement agreement with the government on April 24, 2020. Details of the settlement agreement have not been disclosed. It is unknown if Officer Hedlund or any of the other CBP officers involved were disciplined in any way.

Counsel: Iredale & Yoo, APC

Contact: Eugene Iredale | 619.233.1525 | contact@iredalelaw.com

Sabra v. U.S. Customs and Border Protection

Sabra v. U.S. Customs and Border Protection, No. 1:20-cv-00681-CKK (D.D.C., filed Mar. 9, 2020)

On September 11, 2015, Fleta Christina Cousin Sabra—a U.S. citizen and accredited humanitarian worker—traveled with a family of asylum-seeking Syrian refugees and the refugees’ lawful permanent resident relative from Mexico into the United States by way of a U.S. port of entry in Southern California. When Ms. Sabra explained to a U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) officer that the family wished to seek asylum, the officer handcuffed all members of the group, including Ms. Sabra. CBP officers detained Ms. Sabra for several hours, during which time they insulted her Muslim faith, pulled off her hijab, and physically assaulted her.

In July 2016, Ms. Sabra submitted a request for agency records pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) regarding the September 11, 2015 encounter, CBP’s subsequent related records, CBP’s investigation, communications regarding the family of Syrian refugees, and other CBP records regarding Ms. Sabra. In response, CBP produced only five pages of records.

Ms. Sabra filed this action on March 9, 2020, seeking to compel CBP to conduct a reasonable search and produce records responsive to her FOIA request. On May 29, 2020, CBP made an initial production and reported that it anticipates making monthly, rolling releases. Ms. Sabra moved for judgment on the pleadings. CBP made additional productions in June, July, and August of 2020. The court denied Ms. Sabra’s motion on March 2, 2021. On March 10, 2021, the government moved for summary judgment and briefing was completed on May 5, 2021. 

On March 14, 2022, the district court denied CBP’s motion for summary judgment without prejudice, holding that the agency had not established that it had conducted an adequate search for records responsive to Ms. Sabra’s request. CBP filed a renewed motion for summary judgment in June 2022. As of November 2022, the motion is fully briefed and a decision is pending from the court.

Documents:

Counsel: Law Office of R. Andrew Free

Contact: R. Andrew Free | (844) 321-3221 | Andrew@ImmigrantCivilRights.com

A.I.I.L. et al. v. Sessions et al.

A.I.I.L. on behalf of herself and her minor children, J.A.H.I. and M.E.H.I., et al., No. 4:19-cv-00481-JAS (D. Ariz., filed Oct. 3, 2019)

This lawsuit seeks damages on behalf of thousands of traumatized children and parents who were forcibly torn from each other under the Trump administration’s illegal practice of separating families at the border.

Leading child welfare organizations, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and medical professionals have publicly denounced the forced separation of children from their parents, citing the long-lasting, detrimental effects on children’s emotional growth and cognitive development. Separated parents, meanwhile, face an increased risk of developing mental health disorders, with trauma linked to severe anxiety, depression, and suicidal thoughts.

Plaintiffs cited in the complaint include families from Guatemala and Honduras who were separated along the border in Arizona for up to 16 months. In addition to damages, the lawsuit seeks the creation of a fund to pay for professional mental health services for affected families.

The lawsuit, A.I.I.L. v. Sessions, cites violations of the Fourth Amendment (unreasonable seizure of children); the Fifth Amendment due process clause (fundamental right to family integrity; right to a hearing; right to adequate health care); and equal protection (prohibiting discrimination on the basis of race, ethnicity, or national origin).

Defendants include officials from the Department of Justice, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and Customs and Border Protection (CBP), and Health and Human Services (HHS)/Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR).

On February 14, 2020, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ complaint, asserting lack of personal jurisdiction, failure to state a claim, and qualified immunity. Briefing on that motion is complete. On July 22, 2020, Plaintiffs sought leave to amend their complaint to include their administratively exhausted Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) claims. Defendants requested that the court defer a decision on Plaintiffs’ motion to amend pending the court’s decision on Defendants’ motion to dismiss. On August 31, 2020 the court granted Plaintiffs’ motion to amend and denied Defendants’ motion to dismiss.

On September 3, 2020, Plaintiffs filed their amended complaint. In February 2021, Defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint for lack of jurisdiction, failure to state a claim, and on qualified immunity grounds.

On May 20, 2021, Plaintiffs sought a stay of the action to facilitate further settlement discussions in hopes of resolving their FTCA claims against the United States. The individual Defendants objected to the stay of the individual-capacity claims. The court lifted the abeyance on January 7, 2022.

On March 31, 2022, the court granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss all claims except for the FTCA claims of four of the five Plaintiff families. With respect to the FTCA claims, the court held, among other things, that those claims were not barred by the discretionary function or due care exceptions to the FTCA. With respect to the dismissed constitutional claims brought under Bivens, the court held, among other things, that special factors counseled against extending Bivens to a new context that challenged high level policy decisions. On July 14, 2022, the court denied the government’s motions to consolidate policy-level discovery in A.I.I.L. with related family separation cases in the district.

On July 15, 2022, the individual Defendants filed a Rule 54(b) motion for the entry of a final judgment as to the claims against the individual defendants. The motion has been fully briefed and remains pending before the court as of November 2022.

Documents:

Counsel: Christine Wee, ACLU of Arizona; Lee Gelernt, Anand Balakrishnan, Daniel Galindo, Stephen Kang, & Spencer Amdur, ACLU Immigrant Rights’ Project; Geoffry R. Chepiga, Jacqueline P. Rubin, Emily Goldberg, Hallie S. Goldblatt, Steven C. Herzog, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP; Alexander A. Reinert, Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law.

Contact: Lee Gelernt | ACLU Immigrants’ Rights Project | lgelernt@aclu.org

Gomez Vincente v. United States of America & Barrera

Gomez Vincente, et al., v. United States of America, et al., No. 5:20-cv-00081 (S.D. Tex., filed May 12, 2020)

On May 24, 2018, Border Patrol agent Romualdo Barrera shot and killed Claudia Patricia Gómez González, a twenty-year-old Guatemalan woman, several hundred yards from the U.S.-Mexico border in Rio Bravo, Texas. Claudia was walking through Rio Bravo with a few other people when Agent Barrera confronted the group. Although several members of the group began running, Claudia remained where she was. Agent Barrera drew his weapon, and when Claudia – a petite woman who was not carrying anything that could even remotely be perceived to be a weapon – took a step forward, the agent aimed at her, pulled the trigger, and shot her in the head.

Following the shooting, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) issued a press release claiming that members of Claudia’s group had attacked the agent with “blunt objects” and that Claudia was one of the assailants. It later retracted that statement and issued a new one, removing any references to the blunt objects or allegations that Claudia had assaulted the agent.

On May 23, 2019, Claudia’s family filed an administrative claim under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) for Claudia’s wrongful death, seeking substantial damages and hoping to ensure accountability for the officials’ unlawful acts. When more than six months passed after filing the claim without any action by the agencies, Claudia’s family filed a federal suit against the United States for common law battery, negligence, gross negligence, and reckless conduct pursuant to the FTCA, and against the agent who killed Claudia for excessive, unreasonable force and deprivation of due process in violation of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.

On May 13, 2020, the Plaintiffs filed an emergency motion to expedite discovery, which the court granted in part and denied in part on May 19, 2020. On September 9, 2020, Defendants filed their answer. On September 29, 2020, Defendant Barrera filed a motion to dismiss the Bivens claims against him. On December 1, 2020, the court granted the U.S.’s motion to stay the case pending an FBI investigation of Claudia’s death.

The stay was lifted on July 8, 2021. On July 19, 2021, Magistrate Judge John Kazen issued a Report and Recommendation (R&R) recommending the district court dismiss all Bivens claims. On August 2021, Plaintiffs filed their objections to the R&R. On September 29, 2021, United States District Judge Diana Saldaña adopted the Magistrate Judge’s R&R in part and dismissed all Bivens claims.

The parties settled the remaining FTCA claims for an undisclosed amount. The case was dismissed pursuant to a stipulation of dismissal.

Counsel: Kirkland & Ellis LLP; ACLU of Texas; ACLU Immigrant Rights Project

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

Lovell v. United States

Lovell v. United States of America, No. 1:18-cv-01867 (E.D.N.Y., filed Mar. 28, 2018)

On November 27, 2016, Tameika Lovell was returning from Jamaica and traveling through John F. Kennedy Airport when U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) officers selected her for a “random search.” Officers took her to a secured area and conducted a physically invasive and traumatic search of her body, including a body cavity search, for which she later sought medical and psychological treatment.

Ms. Lovell filed a federal tort claim with CBP on May 10, 2017, but it was subsequently denied. On March 28, 2018, Ms. Lovell filed this action seeking damages under Bivens and alleging violations of her Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights. The complaint alleges that CBP’s search of Ms. Lovell was carried out in in violation of the Fourth Amendment and was conduct that “shocked the conscience” in violation of the Fifth Amendment. She further alleges that the search was not random but instead based on her race, and that CBP unlawfully singles out females and persons of color for searches. Furthermore, Ms. Lovell alleges that the United States and CBP condone employees’ intentional violations of the National Standards on Transportation, Escort, Detention, and Search, the agency’s written standards for searches. Ms. Lovell seeks compensatory and punitive damages against CBP.

On August 8, 2022, the court granted Defendants’ motion for summary judgment in its entirety on the basis that the Supreme Court’s decision in Egbert v. Boule foreclosed Ms. Lovell’s Bivens action against the named CBP officers. Alternatively, the court held that that the officers would be entitled to qualified immunity for their actions.

Press Coverage:

Counsel: The Sanders Firm, P.C.
Contact: Eric Sanders | 212-652-2782

J.I. v. USA

J.I. v. USA, No. 1:18-at-00185 (E.D. Cal., filed March 15, 2018)

In the summer of 2016, J.I., a minor, traveled from Guatemala with her older sister to reunite with their mother in the United States. The sisters became lost in the area near the Presidio, Texas and Ojinaga, Chihuahua border. Afraid and thirsty, the sisters flagged down Border Patrol agents for help. The sisters were then taken into custody.

Once J.I. was in custody, a Border Patrol agent removed her from the cell she was in with her sister and took her to a small room, where he forced J.I. to remove her clothing and expose her breasts and genitalia. He then assaulted and battered J.I.

On March 21, 2017, J.I. submitted an administrative claim to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”), as required under the Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”). In a letter dated September 27, 2017, CBP replied on behalf of all named agencies and denied the administrative tort claim in full.

On March 15, 2018, the ACLU of Northern California filed an FTCA lawsuit against CBP alleging assault and battery, false imprisonment, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and negligence. The lawsuit also included constitutional claims (violations of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments). The parties agreed to settle on October 19, 2018, and reached an agreement that includes a $125,000 payment to J.I. It is unclear whether CBP disciplined the agent, Fernando Saucedo III, and whether he is still employed by CBP.

Related Documents:

Counsel: ACLU of Northern California

Contact:  Angélica Salceda | ACLU of Northern California | asalceda@aclunc.org

 

Al Otro Lado v. Wolf

Al Otro Lado et al. v. McAleenan et al., No. 3:17-cv-02366 (S.D. Cal., filed July 12, 2017), No. 22-55988 (9th Cir., filed Sept. 21, 2022), and No. 22-56036 (9th Cir., filed Nov. 4, 2022)

On July 12, 2017, the American Immigration Council, along with the Center for Constitutional Rights and Latham & Watkins, LLP, filed a class action lawsuit challenging U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP)’s unlawful practice of turning away asylum seekers who present themselves at ports of entry along the U.S.-Mexico border.

The plaintiffs in the case are Al Otro Lado (a non-profit legal services organization that serves indigent deportees, migrants, and refugees in Los Angeles and Tijuana) and six courageous asylum seekers who experienced CBP’s unlawful conduct firsthand. Their experiences demonstrate that CBP uses a variety of tactics—including misrepresentation, threats and intimidation, verbal and physical abuse, and coercion—to deny bona fide asylum seekers the opportunity to pursue their claims. The complaint alleges that CBP’s conduct violates the Immigration and Nationality Act, the Administrative Procedure Act, the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, and the doctrine of non-refoulement under international law.

On November 13, 2017, Plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification, which included dozens of declarations from asylum seekers CBP had turned away at the border. On November 28, 2017, the Court granted Defendants’ motion to transfer venue to the Southern District of California and dismissed all pending motions without prejudice. On August 20, 2018, the court denied in part and granted in part the government’s motion to dismiss, allowing the majority of plaintiffs’ claims to go forward. On October 12, 2018, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint highlighting the Trump administration’s specific implementation of the “turnback policy” as well as the administration’s own “zero-tolerance policy.”

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on November 29, 2018, which Plaintiffs opposed. Close to two dozen states filed an amicus brief in support of Plaintiffs’ opposition to the motion to dismiss, as did many members of Congress, Amnesty International, law professors, and nineteen nonprofit immigrant advocacy organizations.

In July 2019, the judge rejected most of Defendants’ claims in the motion to dismiss and ordered the government to file an answer to Plaintiffs’ second amended complaint, which it did in August 2019. In February, the parties completed briefing on certification of a class consisting of all noncitizens who seek or will seek to access the U.S. asylum process by presenting themselves at a POE on the U.S.-Mexico border, and were or will be denied access to the U.S. asylum process by or at the instruction of CBP officials on or after January 1, 2016, as well as sub-class of those who were or will be denied access to the U.S. asylum process as a result of metering over the same time period.

Motion for Preliminary Injunction

While this case has been pending, and asylum seekers remain stranded in Mexico under the Turnback Policy, the Trump administration issued an interim final rule (the “Asylum Ban”) barring individuals from asylum eligibility in the United States if they transited through a third country and did not seek protection there first. On September 26, 2019, Plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary injunction and a motion seeking provisional class certification asking the district court to keep Defendants from applying the Asylum Ban to provisional class members, in order to maintain their eligibility for asylum until the court rules on the legality of the Trump administration’s metering policy in this case.

On November 19, 2019, the court provisionally certified a class consisting of “all non-Mexican asylum seekers who were unable to make a direct asylum claim at a U.S. [port of entry] before July 16, 2019 because of the U.S. Government’s metering policy, and who continue to seek access to the U.S. asylum process.” The court also blocked Defendants from applying the Asylum Ban to members of the provisional class and ordered that Defendants apply pre-Asylum Ban practices for processing the asylum applications of members of the class.

On December 4, 2019, Defendants appealed the district court’s order to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. On March 5, 2020, the Ninth Circuit denied Defendants’ motion for a stay of the order until the appellate court decides the merits of the appeal. In doing so, the Ninth Circuit lifted its previously imposed emergency temporary stay of the order. At this time, the district court’s order is in effect.

On July 17, 2020, Plaintiffs filed a motion to clarify the preliminary injunction, asserting that since the Ninth Circuit lifted the temporary stay, Defendants had committed “numerous violations of the preliminary injunction,” including “tak[ing] minimal and insufficient steps to identify class members and to ensure that the Asylum Ban does not impact their eligibility for asylum” and refusing to produce the written guidance sent to the various government agencies involved in implementing the preliminary injunction. Defendants responded in opposition to the motion on August 3, 2020 and Plaintiffs replied on August 10, 2020.

Class Certification

Oral argument was held on the motion for class certification on July 30, 2020. On August 6, 2020, the district court granted Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification, certifying a class consisting of “all noncitizens who seek or will seek to access the U.S. asylum process by presenting themselves at a Class A [POE] on the U.S.- Mexico border, and were or will be denied access to the U.S. asylum process by or at the instruction of [CBP] officials on or after January 1, 2016.” The court also certified a subclass of “all noncitizens who were or will be denied access to the U.S. asylum process at a Class A POE on the U.S.-Mexico border as a result of Defendants’ metering policy on or after January 1, 2016.”

Discovery began and on September 4, 2020 Plaintiffs filed a motion for summary judgment. On September 25, 2020, Defendants filed a cross motion for summary judgment and opposition to Plaintiffs’ motion.

Class counsel have prepared a Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) resource to address common questions about the court’s order, class membership, and implementation.  The FAQ resource will be updated periodically and is available here.

Motion for Summary Judgment

The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment in September 2020. On September 2, 2021, the court granted Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment in part, specifically to Plaintiff’s claim for violations of APA § 706(1) and Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause. Defendant’s motion for summary judgment was granted as to claims based on the ultra vires violations of the right to seek asylum and violation of the Alien Tort Statute. The court deferred a decision on remedy and asked the parties to submit briefing on remedies in light of the APA § 706(1) finding and considering how Title 42 would affect the implementation of a remedy. The parties submitted supplemental briefs on October 1, 2021. On April 1, 2022, the parties filed a joint status report addressing current issues regarding court oversight and remedies.

On August 5, 2022, the court issued two decisions. First, the judge converted the preliminary injunction to a permanent injunction and granted in part, but denied in part, Plaintiffs’ motion to clarify the preliminary injunction order. Second, she issued a decision with respect to remedies on summary judgment. The court concluded that it could not enter any injunctive relief, relying on the Supreme Court’s decisions in Garland v. Aleman Gonzalez, 142 S. Ct. 2057 (2022). Instead, the court entered declaratory judgment, declaring that “absent any independent, express, and lawful statutory authority, Defendants’ refusal to deny inspection or asylum processing to noncitizens who have not been admitted or paroled and who are in the process of arriving in the United States at Class A Ports of Entry is unlawful regardless of the purported justification for doing so.”

The parties have cross-appealed the final judgment to the Ninth Circuit.

Counsel: Mayer Brown LLP | American Immigration Council | Center for Constitutional Rights | Southern Poverty Law Center | Center for Gender and Refugee Studies

Contact: Melissa Crow | Center for Gender and Refugee Studies | crowmelissa@uchastings.edu

FTCA Administrative Complaint Against Border Patrol Re: Two Sisters Sexually Assaulted by CBP Officer in Texas

FTCA Administrative Complaint Against Border Patrol Re: Two Sisters Sexually Assaulted by CBP Officer in Texas

In July 2016, two sisters — then 19 and 17 years old — lost their way while traveling to the United States from Guatemala, and encountered CBP officers after crossing the Texas-Chihuahua, Mexico, border. They asked for help and were taken to a CBP field office in Presidio, Texas. Once there, the sisters were led by a federal officer into a closet-like room one at a time, told to remove all their clothes, and sexually assaulted. The victims report that they continue to suffer severe emotional distress as a result of the assault.

The sisters reported the abuse shortly after it occurred to another CBP officer in the field office where they were held, and an investigation was launched by the Department of Homeland Security’s Office of Inspector General. The sisters were interviewed twice and asked to draw a depiction of the closet. Federal authorities have not pursued criminal charges against the officer, nor is it clear whether the officer has faced any disciplinary actions for his assaults on the sisters.

On March 22, 2017, the ACLU of Northern California filed two administrative claims under the Federal Tort Claims Act with the federal government on behalf of each of the sisters.

Media:

Counsel:  ACLU of Northern California

Contact: Angélica Salceda | asalceda@aclunc.org | (415) 621-2493

Alton Jones v. United States of America, et al.

Alton Jones v. United States of America, et al., No. 3:16-cv-01986-W-WVG (S.D. Cal., filed Aug. 8, 2016)

In August 2014, Alton Jones, a U.S. citizen who served as a Navy SEAL from 1977 to 1990, was assaulted by Border Patrol agents while out for a run at the Border Field State Park / Tijuana Estuary. He was tackled to the ground and then detained, first at the State Park and then at the Imperial Beach Border Patrol Station, where he was held without charge or explanation overnight. All told, he spent seventeen hours in Border Patrol custody before being released. He was never charged with any offense.

On August 8, 2016, the ACLU of San Diego and Imperial Counties’ Border Litigation Project filed a federal complaint in the Southern District of California on Mr. Jones’s behalf, alleging violations of Mr. Jones’ Fourth Amendment rights. Additionally, under the Federal Tort Claims Act, Mr. Jones submitted an administrative complaint to the Department of Homeland Security and U.S. Customs and Border Protection, claiming $3 million in damages for false imprisonment, battery by a peace officer, assault, negligence, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and violation of the California Bane Act.

On October 20, 2017, CBP denied Mr. Jones’s administrative tort claim. On February 3, 2017, because his administrative claim was denied, the Border Litigation Project filed an amended complaint to add Mr. Jones’s tort claims. On April 7, 2017, Defendants filed an answer to Mr. Jones’s amended complaint. On April 10, 2017, Defendants filed a counterclaim against Mr. Jones, alleging assault.

Discovery commenced in May 2017 and concluded in April 2018. On January 12, 2018, Plaintiff and Counter-Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment on the government’s counterclaim, which the government opposed. On May 2, 2018, Defendants filed a combined motion for summary judgment as to all claims brought against them and on their counterclaim against Plaintiff. On May 16, 2018, Defendants, DHS and CBP, filed another motion for summary judgment, this time seeking to dismiss the FOIA claim. Plaintiff opposed both motions. On November 15, 2019, the court dismissed in part and granted in part both motions for summary judgment.

The court dismissed the constitutional claims against the CBP officers, finding that the CBP agents had probable cause to arrest Mr. Jones due to his presence in a restricted area and his failure to heed repeated warnings to leave. The court allowed several of the FTCA claims to proceed. Notably, Jones’ claim for battery survived summary judgment due to Jones’ testimony that officers hit him, supported by documented evidence of injuries. His claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress, based on his allegation that the agents locked him in a patrol car with the heat turned on and the windows rolled up (in August desert sun), also was allowed to proceed. The defendants won summary judgment on their counterclaim against Jones for negligence in causing injury to one of the officers.

The parties settled in March 2019, agreeing to drop the claims against each other without either party paying compensation.

FTCA Administrative Complaints Challenging Abuses from CBP Roving Patrols

FTCA Administrative Complaints Challenging Abuses from CBP Roving Patrols

When conducting enforcement operations within the United States, CBP regularly sends its officers on “roving patrols.” These patrols, conducted many miles away from the U.S. Border, often lead to the detention and interrogation of U.S. citizens without reasonable suspicion of any crime. Many of the U.S. citizens detained by CBP were targeted because of their ethnicity, and CBP officers have subjected citizens to verbal and physical abuse while checking their citizenship status. Collected here are examples of complaints that the ACLU has filed against CBP to address the continued violation of U.S. citizens’ rights at the hands of CBP.

2013 Office of the Inspector General Complaint

On October 9, 2013, the ACLU of Arizona 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) concerning unlawful conduct of Border Patrol agents during roving patrols in Southern Arizona.  The complaint was submitted on behalf of 5 U.S. citizens who detail very serious incidents of verbal or physical abuse when their vehicles were stopped without reasonable suspicion by Border Patrol agents.  In at least two of the incidents, young children were traveling in the vehicles.

The complaint calls for the investigation of these incidents; a comprehensive review of complaints involving CBP roving patrols to determine whether Border Patrol agents are complying with their obligations under agency guidelines, the U.S. Constitution, and international law; and recommendations from OIG and CRCL regarding significant changes in CBP training, oversight, and accountability mechanisms necessary to address the problems and prevent further abuses.

2014 Office of the Inspector General Complaint

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.

2015 Federal Tort Claims Act Administrative Complaint

On May 19, 2015, the ACLU of Arizona filed two claims with the federal government under the Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”) on behalf of an Arizona woman seeking monetary damages for egregious and repeated rights violations by U.S. Border Patrol agents.

The first claim arises out of an incident on May 21, 2013, in which Border Patrol agents stopped Clarisa Christiansen and her two young children without cause while the family was driving home from school.  After Ms. Christiansen demanded an explanation, the agents threatened to deploy a Taser and then threatened to cut her out of her seatbelt with a knife.  The agents subsequently slashed a rear tire and left Ms. Christiansen and her children stranded on a hot desert road with a flat tire and no explanation.

In October 2013, the ACLU submitted a complaint to DHS oversight agencies on behalf of Ms. Christiansen and four others who were subjected to unlawful “roving patrol” stops by Border Patrol.  More than a year and a half later, those agencies have yet to respond.

The second claim was filed in response to years of unauthorized and unlawful entries by Border Patrol agents onto the family’s private property west of Tucson.  On a weekly basis, Border Patrol helicopters buzz the family’s home at extremely low altitudes, causing dwellings to shake, and often disrupting the family’s sleep with deafening noise and bright lights.  Agents have also repeatedly entered the Christiansens’ property on foot and on motorized vehicles, despite numerous posted “No Trespassing” signs.

Federal law currently grants Border Patrol authority to enter onto private property within twenty-five miles of the border “to prevent illegal entry.”  Agents are further empowered to conduct interior enforcement within 100 miles of any national boundary, an area that encompasses most of the U.S. population.  As in Ms. Christiansen’s case, agents routinely ignore the legal limits of their authority in the course of these operations.

Counsel: ACLU of Arizona