Erick Yoc-Us v. Attorney General United States

PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT _____________ Nos. 18-1520 and 18-1521 _____________ ERICK GEOVANY YOC-US, Petitioner in case number 18-1520 v. ATTORNEY GENERAL UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent LUIS CALEL ESPANTZAY, Petitioner in case number 18-1521 v. ATTORNEY GENERAL UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA-1 : A213-090-679 and BIA-1 : A213-090-683) Immigration Judge: Honorable Walter A. Durling Argued on November 7, 2018 (Opinion filed: July 31, 2019) Before: AMBRO, SCIRICA and RENDELL, Circuit Judges Joanna J. Cline, Esquire (Argued) Anthony C. Vale, Esquire Andrew R. Rogoff, Esquire Pepper Hamilton 3000 Two Logan Square 18th and Arch Streets Philadelphia, PA 19103 Counsel for Petitioners Jennifer A. Bowen, Esquire OIL United States Department of Justice Office of Immigration Litigation P.O. Box 878 Ben Franklin Station Washington, DC 20044 2 Dana M. Camilleri, Esquire (Argued) United States Department of Justice Office of Immigration Litigation 450 5th Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20001 Counsel for Respondent David R. Fine, Esquire K&L Gates 17 North Second Street 18th Floor Harrisburg, PA 17101 Counsel Amicus-petitioner OPINION RENDELL, Circuit Judge: Early one morning, Petitioners Erick Geovany Yoc-Us and Luis Calel-Espantzay were traveling in a van that was stopped for speeding by a Pennsylvania state trooper. During the course of the stop, the trooper discovered that Petitioners were undocumented aliens. The trooper detained them and called Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”), who 3 interviewed and fingerprinted Petitioners and took them into custody. In the civil removal proceedings that followed, Petitioners argued that the stop violated the Fourth Amendment and that the evidence of their alienage should be suppressed. The Immigration Judge (“IJ”) and the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) were unpersuaded. While the Supreme Court has held that the Fourth Amendment does not require suppression of evidence in civil removal proceedings where the purportedly offending conduct by federal agents was neither egregious nor widespread, this case presents a different context, namely, a state trooper’s conduct rather than that of a federal officer. Accordingly, we must consider whether this difference leads to a different result. I. A. Petitioners are undocumented aliens from Guatemala who have lived and worked in New York since 2008. They were traveling in a van with eight other men, returning to New York from Georgia. According to declarations submitted by Petitioners and other passengers, Pennsylvania State Trooper Luke C. Macke pulled the van over for speeding between 7:40 and 8:00 in the morning. Petitioners were not driving the van when this happened and were instead asleep in the back of the van. When Macke approached the driver of the vehicle, he asked for his license and registration. Petitioners allege that the driver did not have his license with him, but he gave Macke his social security number and offered to call his wife to get his driver’s license number. The owner of the van, who was seated in the 4 front passenger seat, gave Macke his own license and ...

Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals