De La Cruz was illegally present in the US, and was driving a friend (also illegally present) to work at a car wash. ICE agents were waiting at the car was, because they were looking for someone else. When De La Cruz got there, after a 1-2 second glimpse through the windshield the agents thought he might be the person they were looking for. They moved their cars forward to block him in, and turned on their emergency lights.
De La Cruz's passenger took off running, and one of the ICE agents chased him down. De La Cruz stayed put.
De La Cruz's passenger was caught, and later determined to be an illegal immigrant. More importantly to this case, right after he was caught the agent who chased him came back and recognized that De La Cruz was not the person they had been looking for.
The agents continued to detain De La Cruz, and requested his identification. He gave them a fake ID, but using the info on the ID card they were able to figure out that he had previously been deported. He admitted to that after being read Miranda warnings, and he was charged with unlawfully reentering the US. He moved to suppress the evidence, the trial court denied, and he appealed.
The trial court denied his motion on two grounds: 1- the agents had reasonable suspicion to detain him, and 2- even if they didn't, his identity can not be suppressed in court.
The Tenth disagreed. Regarding the second argument, the court held that even though an unlawful arrest does not void the court's jurisdiction over a defendant, evidence related to their identity can still be suppressed as fruits of the poisonous tree. Regarding the first argument, the court held that the agents had reasonable suspicion when they thought that De La Cruz looked like the person they were looking for, but that dissipated as soon as they realized he was not the same person. When someoen is detained, the entire detention must be justified by reasonable suspicion (even if the reasonable suspicion is based on different facts at different times during the detention), and even a brief detention once RS has dissipated violates the Fourth Amendment. The court also held that even though De La Cruz's passenger fled, that fact by itself didn't justify further detaining De La Cruz. Flight may create suspicion regarding the person who flees, but not regarding everyone who happened to be with him at the time. Also, being in the company of someone illegally in the US might create reasonable suspicion if you're near the border, or if you're on a road frequently used for illegal entry, but not if you're just driving someone to work hundreds of miles from the border.
Since reasonable suspicion had already dissipated when the agents required De La Cruz to identify himself, the stop was illegal and the evidence obtained as a result of the stop should have been suppressed. The lower court's decision (and De La Cruz's conviction) were reversed.
No comments:
Post a Comment