6/13/19: A couple of very good Fourth Amendment decisions

The first case is a rare Fourth Amendment decision that arose in the immigration context. 

In Perez Cruz v. Barr, --- F.3d ---, No. 15-70530 (9th Cir. 2019), the Ninth Circuit ordered suppression and dismissal of the removal proceedings. 

Here is the intro to Judge Berzon's opinion:

Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents implemented a preconceived plan to “target” over 200 factory workers for detention and for interrogation as to their immigration status. The plan turned on obtaining and executing a search warrant for employment records at the factory. The record before us establishes that the search warrant for documents was executed “in order to” arrest undocumented workers present at the factory. Our central question is whether the ICE agents were permitted to carry out preplanned mass detentions, interrogations, and arrests at the factory, without individualized reasonable suspicion. We hold that they were not.

This decision delves deeply into the applicability of Michigan v. Summers, 452 U.S. 692 (1981), which held that a warrant to search for contraband founded on probable cause implicitly carries with it the limited authority to detain the occupants of the premises while a proper search is conducted.

The Court held that Summers did not apply in this context, because the search warrant was plainly a ruse:  "We hold that Summers’ categorical authority to detain incident to the execution of a search warrant does not extend to a preexisting plan whose central purpose is to detain, interrogate, and arrest a large number of individuals without individualized reasonable suspicion."

The Court further found that the evidence at issue -- admissions and a birth certificate -- were subject to suppression because they were not evidence of identity.  Rather, they were evidence of alienage.

Although this opinion is dense, it is worth a read.

A less dense, but equally worthy read is United States v. Moore-Bush, 18-30001 (D. Mass. 2019). In this case, the Court ordered suppression of pole-camera footage taken over a period of eight months without a warrant.

The Court relied heavily on Carpenter to find the defendants' had a reasonable expectation of privacy in their comings and goings from their home.

This is a must read and should prompt motions to suppress pole camera evidence.