United States v. Mendez-De-Jesus, 85 F.3d 1, 1st Cir. (1996)

85 F.
3d 1
UNITED STATES of America, Appellee,

v.
Joselyn Antonio MENDEZ-DE JESUS, Defendant, Appellant.
No. 95-2063.
United States Court of Appeals,

First Circuit.
Heard Feb. 28, 1996.
Decided May 30, 1996.
Vilma Maria Dapena, Assistant Federal Public Defender, with whom

Benicio Sanchez Rivera, Federal Public Defender, was on brief for
appellant.
Jose F. Blanco-Torres, Assistant United States Attorney, with whom
Guillermo Gil, United States Attorney, and Jose A. Quiles, Senior
Litigation Counsel, were on brief for appellee.
Before TORRUELLA, Chief Judge, COFFIN, Senior Circuit Judge, and
CYR, Circuit Judge.
COFFIN, Senior Circuit Judge.
Defendant Jocelyn Antonio Mendez-de Jesus entered a conditional plea of

guilty to re-entering the United States after being deported subsequent to a
felony conviction, 8 U.S.C. 1326(a) & (b)(1), reserving his right to appeal the
district court's denial of his motion to suppress his identification and
immigration record. Finding no error below, we affirm.
BACKGROUND
2
Three boats carrying illegal aliens from the Dominican Republic landed in the
vicinity of Rincon, Puerto Rico in the late hours of December 12 and early
hours of December 13, 1994. On the morning of December 13, two private
citizens brought the defendant and an unknown female to the police station in
Rincon. Border Patrol Agent Hector Lugo of the Immigration and
Naturalization Service (INS) was there already in order to interview persons

who had been picked up from the boats. The citizens reported to Lugo that the
defendant and his companion were not known to them and appeared to be lost.
3
Lugo suspected that the female passenger was an illegal alien: she had damp
and dirty clothing, ragged hair, and an odor associated with urine and
defecation on boats. Mendez, on the other hand, did not give the impression of
having recently arrived illegally via boat. He appeared tidy, denied
understanding Spanish and told Lugo that "I'm from here." Lugo commenced
questioning the woman, who, instead of answering, continually looked at
Mendez. Lugo asked if she knew Mendez and she responded affirmatively.
Mendez also acknowledged knowing the woman, saying that they met in the
Dominican Republic. Eventually, the woman admitted that she entered Puerto
Rico illegally that morning.
At that time, Lugo asked Mendez for identification and was given his resident
alien registration card. He brought Mendez inside the station and, while
awaiting verification of the registration card, began interrogating him. Shortly
thereafter, he received information that Mendez had previously been deported.
The district court denied Mendez's motion to suppress, but, on his motion for
reconsideration, found that Lugo lacked probable cause to further detain or
interrogate Mendez after receiving his alien registration card and, therefore,
suppressed all statements made thereafter. The court refused to suppress the
card itself or the corresponding INS records that documented his previous
deportation.
DISCUSSION
A. Standard of Review
6
Our review of a district court's decision to grant or deny a suppression motion is

plenary. United States v. McCarthy, 77 F.3d 522, 529 (1st Cir.1996). We
scrutinize the court's factual findings, including credibility determinations, for
clear error, United States v. Valle, 72 F.3d 210, 214 (1st Cir.1995), and will
uphold a denial of a motion to suppress if any reasonable view of the evidence
supports it. United States v. de Jesus-Rios, 990 F.2d 672, 677 (1st Cir.1993).
B. Fourth Amendment Claims

7
In an effort to invoke the exclusionary rule, Lugo alleges two violations of the
Fourth Amendment. First, he contends that he was illegally arrested and
brought to the police station. Second, he argues that Lugo's request for his
identification constituted an unconstitutional seizure.
8
We can quickly dispose of the first issue. Mendez was brought to the police
station by two private citizens. While the seizure of Mendez may have assisted
the government, there is no suggestion that the government initiated or
participated in the citizen action. In the absence of governmental action, the
Fourth Amendment does not apply. See Skinner v. Railway Labor Executives'
Ass'n, 489 U.S. 602, 614, 109 S.Ct. 1402, 1411, 103 L.Ed.2d 639 (1989)
(Fourth Amendment does not apply to private action unless private party "acted
as an instrument or agent of the Government"); United States v. Jacobsen, 466
U.S. 109, 113, 104 S.Ct. 1652, 1656, 80 L.Ed.2d 85 (1984).
Mendez's alternative claim fares no better. He contests the court's finding that
Lugo's authority to ask for identification derived from 8 U.S.C. 1357(a)(1),
which provides that an immigration officer may, without warrant, "interrogate
any alien or person believed to be an alien as to his right to be or to remain in
the United States." In support, he cites the principle that an individual may not
be detained for questioning about citizenship absent reasonable suspicion that
the person is an illegal alien, see United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U.S.
873, 884, 95 S.Ct. 2574, 2581-82, 45 L.Ed.2d 607 (1975), and points to Lugo's
testimony that he had the impression that Mendez was a United States citizen.
While this particular argument concerning the applicability of 1357(a)(1) is
not without force, it is ultimately unavailing because the court's findings clearly
demonstrate that Lugo had reasonable suspicion that Mendez was violating the
immigration laws.
10
It is well settled that, based on reasonable and articulable suspicion, an officer

may make a brief stop or seizure of an individual to investigate suspected past
or present criminal activity. McCarthy, 77 F.3d at 529.1 The determination of
whether an officer acted reasonably requires two subsidiary inquiries: 1)
whether the officer's action was justified at its inception; and 2) whether the
action taken was reasonably related in scope to the circumstances justifying the
interference in the first place. Id. at 530 (citing Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 1920, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 1878-79, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968)). This determination
demands examination into the totality of the circumstances confronting the
officer at the time of the stop. Id.
11
Lugo testified that, at the time of his request for Mendez's identification, he was
aware that 1) three boats carrying illegal aliens had arrived in the area within
the previous 24 hours; 2) Mendez and a woman had been brought to the station
by citizens who reported that the couple looked lost and unfamiliar; 3) the
woman appeared to be an illegal alien, though Mendez did not; 4) when asked
questions the woman looked to Mendez for guidance; 5) Mendez and the
woman admitted knowing each other; and 6) the woman admitted to being an
illegal alien.2 Lugo maintained that, based on these circumstances, he believed
that Mendez was assisting the woman in violation of the immigration laws.
12
The court credited this testimony and determined that "[t]hese discoveries and
observations further supported a reasonable suspicion of alienage and formed
the basis for a suspicion of illegal assistance." We agree. In this context, Lugo's
request for identification was a reasonable and minimal intrusion directly
related to his suspicions, and did not violate the Fourth Amendment. As such,
the district court properly denied Mendez's motion to suppress his identification
and immigration record.3
13
Affirmed.
In INS v. Delgado, the Court stated that "interrogation relating to one's identity
or a request for identification by the police does not, by itself, constitute a
Fourth Amendment seizure." 466 U.S. 210, 216, 104 S.Ct. 1758, 1762, 80
L.Ed.2d 247 (1984). The Court added, however, that such an encounter may
constitute a detention or seizure if "the circumstances ... are so intimidating as
to demonstrate that a reasonable person would have believed he was not free to
leave if he had not responded." Id. Though perhaps unnecessary, for purposes
of this case we will assume without deciding that the circumstances
surrounding Lugo's request for identification constituted a seizure under the
Fourth Amendment
Mendez lodged hearsay objections to Lugo's account of the woman looking at

Mendez and her statement that she knew him, which were properly overruled.
The look was nonverbal conduct not intended as an assertion, and both the look
and statement were offered for their effect on Lugo's understanding of the
unfolding events--i.e., his reasonable suspicion--and not to prove that the
woman and Mendez actually knew each other. As such, his account was not
hearsay. See Fed.R.Evid. 801(a) & (c)
The district court alternatively found that, even in the face of a Fourth
Amendment violation, the "body" or identity of a defendant is never
suppressible. See INS v. Lopez-Mendoza, 468 U.S. 1032, 1039, 104 S.Ct.
3479, 3483-84, 82 L.Ed.2d 778 (1984); United States v. Orozco-Rico, 589 F.2d
433, 435 (9th Cir.1978). Because we find no Fourth Amendment violation, at
least up to the point that Lugo received Mendez's alien registration card, we
need not address this conclusion

United States v. Mendez-De-Jesus, 85 F.3d 1, 1st Cir. (1996)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

United States v. Mendez-De-Jesus, 85 F.3d 1, 1st Cir. (1996)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

United States v. Mendez-De-Jesus, 85 F.3d 1, 1st Cir. (1996)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

85 F.

UNITED STATES of America, Appellee,

United States Court of Appeals,

Vilma Maria Dapena, Assistant Federal Public Defender, with whom

Defendant Jocelyn Antonio Mendez-de Jesus entered a conditional plea of

Naturalization Service (INS) was there already in order to interview persons

Our review of a district court's decision to grant or deny a suppression motion is

B. Fourth Amendment Claims

It is well settled that, based on reasonable and articulable suspicion, an officer

Mendez lodged hearsay objections to Lugo's account of the woman looking at

need not address this conclusion

You might also like