U.S. District Judge Jennifer L. Thurston of the Eastern District of California issued a temporary injunction, blocking border patrol from arresting illegal aliens without reasonable suspicion.
The ruling only applies to people in the Eastern District.
Now I must stress this. Thurston’s ruling does not ban border patrol agents from arresting illegal aliens. She said they need a warrant to arrest them, or the agents must have probable cause. The skin color does not matter.
Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction (Doc. 15) is GRANTED, as follows:a. Border Patrol is enjoined from conducting detentive stops in this District unless, pre-stop, the detaining agent has reasonable suspicion that the person to be stopped is a noncitizen who is present within the United States in violation of U.S. immigration law, as required by the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution.b. Border Patrol is enjoined from effecting warrantless arrests in this District unless, pre-arrest, the arresting agent has probable cause to believe that the noncitizen being arrested is likely to escape before a warrant can be obtained, as required by 8 U.S.C. § 1357(a)(2).c. Any Border Patrol agent who conducts a detentive stop in this District SHALL, as soon as practicable, document the facts and circumstances surrounding the stop in a narrative form. This documentation SHALL include the specific, particularized facts that supported the agent’s reasonable suspicion, which was formed in advance of the stop, that: (i) for vehicle stops, the vehicle contained a noncitizen present within the United States in violation of U.S. immigration law; and (ii) for stops on foot, the person stopped was a noncitizen within the United States in violation of U.S. immigration law. The documentation SHALL include the date and time that the agent completed the detentive stop and the date and time the agent completed the documentation.d. Any Border Patrol agent who conducts a warrantless arrest in this District SHALL comply with all requirements set forth in DHS’s “Broadcast Statement of Policy” on compliance with 8 U.S.C. § 1357(a)(2), including but not limited to the requirement that as soon as practicable after an arrest, agents SHALL document in writing “the facts and circumstances surrounding the warrantless arrest” and the “specific, particularized facts supporting the conclusion that the [individual] was likely to escape before a warrant could be obtained.”
It does sound like the agents rounded up people based on their skin color. Thurston’s opinion just reminds the agents that they must have probable cause or reasonable suspicion.
Now I’ll get into the details of the opinion.
The plaintiffs wanted the court to stop the defendants from “(1) detentive stops without regard to reasonable suspicion that the person stopped is in the country unlawfully, and (2) warrantless arrests without regard to probable cause that the person arrested is likely to escape before a warrant can be obtained.”
The ACLU claimed “border patrol agents spent nearly a week unconstitutionally detaining people who ‘appeared to be farmworkers or day laborers, regardless of their actual immigration status or individual circumstances.'”
The organization said the people “were bussed to the border, held without any way to contact family or attorneys, and coerced into signing papers that said they had waived their right to see an immigration judge and voluntarily agreed to leave the country.”
Thurston wrote:
As discussed above, Plaintiffs’ anecdotal evidence establishes a pattern and practice of agents performing detentive stops without reasonable suspicion in this District. In addition, the evidence shows a pattern and practice of warrantless arrests without Border Patrol agents performing individualized flight risk assessments to have probable cause for the arrest as required. This evidence of the identified patterns and practices also shows a likelihood of success on the merits for the claims of the Suspicionless Stop Class and Warrantless Arrest Class.
Thurston cited a Ninth Circuit ruling that said “if a plaintiff who brings a claim for a constitutional violation shows a likelihood of success on the merits, ‘that showing will almost always demonstrate he is suffering irreparable harm as well.'”
“Consequently, violations of the Fourth Amendment show an irreparable harm that supports a request for injunctive relief,” concluded Thurston.
Thurston justified the decision because the El Centro Sector kept expressing “an intent to perform additional operations in the Eastern District of California, including Bakersfield, Fresno, and Sacramento.”
“These statements show Border Patrol agents from the El Centro Sector do not intend to comply with the requirements to perform flight risk assessments for probable cause in the forthcoming operations—including in this District— but to perform warrantless arrests without probable cause,” wrote Thurston. “Consequently, Plaintiffs have shown imminent, irreparable harm to the Warrantless Arrest Class.”
The defendants could also not claim the lawsuit is moot due to new guidance issued by the border patrol known as a Muster.
Thurston said the Muster does not count because it is not broad in scope. Instead, the Muster has a narrow scope and only applies to the local sector.
It also did not help that the “Border Patrol issued the Muster a single business day before the deadline for Defendants to oppose the pending request for a preliminary injunction.”
But Thurston pointed out that “policies in existence for months do not support a finding of mootness.”
CLICK HERE FOR FULL VERSION OF THIS STORY