CrimProf Blog

Editor: Kevin Cole
Univ. of San Diego School of Law

Saturday, August 3, 2013

"Egregious Fourth Amendment violation shown for invoking exclusionary rule in deportation proceeding"

From, summarizing a Second Circuit case applying the exclusionary rule for the benefit of a noncitizen. In the words of the editor, "how often has the non-citizen prevailed in these things? Haven't seen one before because courts always find them 'not egregious enough.'" From the opinion:

Initially, we note that ICE officers purposely arrived at Sicajau's home in the pre-dawn hours, presumably for the purpose of startling the sleeping residents, and, perhaps, with the aim of coercing confused consent. In addition, although the officers apparently secured their target, Cojon, they returned to the home without a warrant and without reasonable suspicion that additional illegal aliens remained behind the home's locked doors. The Government failed to offer any evidence showing that its officers obtained voluntary consent to enter the home; the only record of the raid that we have comes from Sicajau and Ochoa. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, their statements support finding that ICE officers entered the home without consent in egregious violation of the Fourth Amendment.

| Permalink


Post a comment