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. (Opinion, February 4, 2010).
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. (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).
No comments:
Post a Comment