Illegal aliens bogus lawsuit

[sjr09 155]

State Trooper Prevails Against ACLU and Illegal Aliens in Bogus Lawsuit

On February 4, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit dismissed a lawsuit that had been filed by the ACLU against a Rhode Island state trooper who contacted Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) upon discovering that a group of foreign nationals he encountered were illegal aliens. In dismissing the suit, the First Circuit held that the ACLU – who had sued the state trooper and the state of Rhode Island on behalf of the illegal aliens – could not prevail on the multiple causes of action they filed against the trooper because he had acted "reasonably" throughout the entire encounter.

The lawsuit stemmed from a July 11, 2006 traffic stop, in which a Rhode Island state trooper pulled over a 15-passenger van for failure to signal when changing lanes. The driver produced a valid license, registration, and insurance, and stated that he was taking the other 14 passengers in the van to work. The trooper asked the passengers for identification. One of the passengers produced a gym membership card, one offered a non-driver ID card, and two others presented cards issued by the Guatemalan consulate. Though the trooper had difficulty communicating with the individuals because they spoke very little English, he was eventually able to determine that none of the passengers had legitimate identification documents. The aliens ultimately admitted that they were present in the United States illegally. The trooper then conducted a standard background check on the driver and contacted ICE. Three minutes later, ICE called back and asked Chabot to escort the van to ICE's Providence, Rhode Island field office so that they could address the matter further. Upon arriving at the field office, all 14 passengers were arrested for immigration violations. (Id.).

Six months later, the ACLU sued the state trooper on behalf of the illegal aliens. In January 2007, the 14 passengers filed a complaint in federal court alleging that the trooper had conducted an illegal search and seizure in violation of federal civil rights laws, the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution, and the Rhode Island State Constitution. Specifically, the illegal aliens claimed that the trooper illegally prolonged an otherwise lawful traffic stop when he questioned the aliens as to their immigration status and then took action when he learned they were in the country illegally. The trooper contacted ICE and escorted the aliens to the Providence, Rhode Island ICE field office. The complaint also alleged that the trooper had discriminated against the passengers in violation of both state and federal laws, and further claimed that he had acted negligently. On December 30, 2008, a federal judge dismissed the suit on all grounds, ruling that the trooper had reasonable suspicion to suspect immigration violations and to transport the van's passengers to ICE, prompting an appeal by the ACLU and the illegal aliens to the First Circuit. (Id.).

At this point in the litigation, FAIR's litigation arm – the Immigration Reform Law Institute (IRLI) – got involved. IRLI attorneys filed an amicus curiae ("friend of the court") brief arguing that (1) inquiry into the immigration status of vehicle occupants during a lawful traffic stop does not constitute an unreasonable search and seizure under the Fourth Amendment and (2) the trooper had immediate reasonable suspicion to "shift the focus" of the stop from a traffic violation to violations of federal immigration law upon failure of the passengers to produce valid identification. (<A href="http://www.irli.org/bulletin709.html#rhodeisland">IRLI Bulletin, July 2009).

On February 4, the First Circuit upheld the District Court's decision to dismiss the case. The court observed that, before he called ICE, the trooper already knew that the passengers were going to work, had no appropriate identification, and spoke little English. Accordingly, the court ruled, it was reasonable for the trooper to look into potential criminal activity on the part of the passengers. The opinion went on to state that these facts gave the officer not only "reasonable suspicion" to ask the passengers questions about their immigration status, but also "probable cause" to escort the group to ICE. These facts led the First Circuit to rule that the officer was entitled to "qualified immunity," meaning that he was shielded from liability. In reaching this determination, the court stated that the trooper's "conduct [did] not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known." (Opinion, February 4, 2010).

The ruling was well-received in the state of Rhode Island. An editorial in The Providence Journal stated that the First Circuit's decision represents "a victory for common sense and the rule of law." (The Providence Journal, February 12, 2010).

[MrsCat 6]

I cannot believe the ACLU actually went forward with this. That's freaking unbelievable.

[luckytxn 2,265]

Always knew that law officers were allowed to investigate any crimes being committed.

[Darnell 8,479]

Some comments

1. Being an illegal alien in the USA is a crime. Most people are detained after a crime is committed.

2. ACLU should be lambasted for not supporting Americans' Civil Liberties. These were not Americans, these were illegal aliens. Being detained for a crime is not an affront on one's Civil Liberties, regardless of immigration / citizenship status.

3. Hopefully, if these 'fellas' were remanded over for the court dates, all the way to this final appeal, they incurred expenses that were repaid to the detaining entity.

4. when were they deported? Can we throw a party?

Thanks for the link - I'll send the trooper a 'Great Job' PostCard.

[scandal 951]

Some comments

1. Being an illegal alien in the USA is a crime. Most people are detained after a crime is committed.

2. ACLU should be lambasted for not supporting Americans' Civil Liberties. These were not Americans, these were illegal aliens. Being detained for a crime is not an affront on one's Civil Liberties, regardless of immigration / citizenship status.

3. Hopefully, if these 'fellas' were remanded over for the court dates, all the way to this final appeal, they incurred expenses that were repaid to the detaining entity.

4. when were they deported? Can we throw a party?

Thanks for the link - I'll send the trooper a 'Great Job' PostCard.

I would agree with your points 1,3,4.

As to 2. - our Constitution offers protections for non-citizens who are in the US as well as citizens. Even people illegally in the country and arrested for offenses in the US are entitled to due process and the protections of the Fourth Amendment, amongst others. Think about it for a second, and you'll see that that's just as it should be. The presumption of innocence has to be granted to all accused of any offense, including the offense of being in the US illegally. Otherwise how would you protect someone who is indeed legally in the US and wrongly accused?

[luckytxn 2,265]

I do agree that they are allowed due process. I also agree that an officer of the law is allowed to investigate crimes. Being here illegally is a crime.

[scandal 951]

I do agree that they are allowed due process. I also agree that an officer of the law is allowed to investigate crimes. Being here illegally is a crime.

Agreed.

[Darnell 8,479]

I would agree with your points 1,3,4.

As to 2. - our Constitution offers protections for non-citizens who are in the US as well as citizens. Even people illegally in the country and arrested for offenses in the US are entitled to due process and the protections of the Fourth Amendment, amongst others. Think about it for a second, and you'll see that that's just as it should be. The presumption of innocence has to be granted to all accused of any offense, including the offense of being in the US illegally. Otherwise how would you protect someone who is indeed legally in the US and wrongly accused?

ya - i read it the same way, but is vast difference between

--being detained

--being arrested

--staying in jail waiting a court date

IMO, this 'initial detaining' was already covered in the constitution. The ACLU was trying to say the detaining, itself, was illegal. Due Process was followed, that Trooper knew his sh|t. The illegal aliens' rights were also protected under due process.

I'm not arguing any of that - I'm arguing the point that the ACLU has no 'need' to step into this and file a lawsuit. Sure - they could have done some 'oversight function' to make sure the civil liberties of the illegal aliens were not pounced/bounced, but - did they even do that? 'Oversight' is a priviledge with them, not a right or reg of a law.

IMO, this one lawsuit is part of a larger agenda the ACLU has for other stuff relatiing to illegal aliens. <EOM>

Edited February 28, 2010 by Darnell

[luckytxn 2,265]

Personally I am glad for the ACLU trying to see if this passes muster. I would like to know how the court sees this and if they think it is constitutional. If they saw it wasn't then we could see what needed to be changed to be that way. It seems simple to me to me that any officer can inquire if he thinks a crime has been committed. I would like to know if after they were shown to be illegals if ICE then went to the employers and asked why they were hiring illegals and to show the proof and if they can't then to arrest them and fine them.

[skidivawannabe 2]

I'm just wondering -. Assuming you filed for AOS and you still have not received your EAD (therefor no SSN yet), then you got into a similar situation - - no proper U.S identification to show, we all know you are LEGALLY present, although under special circumstances. What can you or should you present to an officer as form of identification and proof to avoid being detained in the first place.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Agreed.

Disagreed. In and of itself, being out of status with immigration is not a "crime". We've been through this many times on here - it only becomes a crime when there is a deportation judgement against a person and they violate it.

As to the lawsuit against the trooper, it sounds quite silly.

[Niels Bohr 72]

I'm glad that there's an ACLU...sometimes they do things that are stupid, but, then again, it's good to have a large organization that stands up against government

[Wyatt's Torch 45]

I'm glad that there's an ACLU...sometimes they do things that are stupid, but, then again, it's good to have a large organization that stands up against government

I agree. I'm all for civil liberties, to the point where I'd like to become involved with the ACLU someday, once I'm a citizen. However, I think they were misguided in this case. I understand where they were coming from -- this situation could have been construed as racial profiling / stereotyping -- but long story short, these folks were in the U.S. illegally and were caught by an officer of the law. The officer merely did basic due diligence and determined that these people were not, in fact, legal. Simple as that.

[Ban Hammer 13,677]

I cannot believe the ACLU actually went forward with this. That's freaking unbelievable.

i am too. i though maldef woulda been involved instead.

[scandal 951]

I'm glad that there's an ACLU...sometimes they do things that are stupid, but, then again, it's good to have a large organization that stands up against government

We actually have quite a number of organizations that stand up to the government, the ACLU being but one of them. That's the essence of being a democratic free society. Pretty much every single-issue lobbying campaign ranging from Planned Parenthood to the NRA to Cindy Sheehan's anti-Iraq war protest to the tea partyers is an example of a vocal organization standing up to the government. And more power to all of them.