INS v. Delgado
466 U.S. 210 (1984)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) "factory survey," in which agents are posted at exits while other agents systematically question workers, does not constitute a Fourth Amendment seizure of the entire workforce. Individual questioning of employees during such a survey is a consensual encounter, not a seizure, if a reasonable person under the circumstances would believe they were free to continue their work and refuse to answer.
Facts:
- In 1977, the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) conducted three "factory surveys" at two Southern California garment factories, Davis Pleating Co. and Mr. Pleat, to locate undocumented immigrant workers.
- Two surveys were conducted pursuant to search warrants and one was conducted with the employer's consent.
- During the surveys, several armed INS agents positioned themselves near the building exits.
- Other agents moved systematically through the factories, approaching employees at their workstations and asking one to three questions related to their citizenship.
- Employees were not prevented from continuing their work or moving about within the factory during the surveys.
- Respondents Herman Delgado, Ramona Correa, Francisca Labonte, and Marie Miramontes were each briefly questioned by an INS agent.
- If an employee provided a credible answer indicating legal status, the agent moved on; if the response was unsatisfactory or the employee admitted to being an alien, the agent would ask for immigration papers.
Procedural Posture:
- Four employees and their union filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California against the INS, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief.
- The District Court granted summary judgment in favor of the INS, finding that no Fourth Amendment detention had occurred.
- The employees (appellants) appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
- The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the factory surveys constituted a seizure of the entire workforce and that individual questioning required reasonable suspicion, which was absent.
- The INS (petitioner) successfully petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) "factory survey," where agents are posted at exits while other agents systematically question workers at their stations about their citizenship, constitute a seizure of the entire workforce or of the individual employees questioned, thereby violating the Fourth Amendment?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Rehnquist
No. The factory survey does not constitute a seizure of the entire workforce or of the individual employees questioned, and therefore does not violate the Fourth Amendment. The stationing of agents at exits was to ensure all persons were questioned, not to prevent them from leaving, and would not cause a reasonable person to believe they were detained. Workers' freedom of movement is primarily restricted by their voluntary obligations to their employer, not by law enforcement. The individual questioning of the respondents was a brief, "classic consensual encounter" because the circumstances were not so intimidating as to make a reasonable person feel they were not free to leave or to refuse to answer.
Concurrence - Justice Stevens
Joins the majority opinion. Because the case is reviewed on summary judgment, the record must be construed most favorably to the INS. The record is insufficient to establish that there is no genuine issue of fact as to whether the respondents could have reasonably believed they had been detained in some meaningful way.
Concurrence - Justice Powell
No. While it is a close question whether a seizure occurred, any seizure that may have taken place was permissible under the Fourth Amendment. The factory surveys are reasonable under the balancing test from United States v. Martinez-Fuerte. The government has a substantial interest in enforcing immigration laws, and the intrusion on employees' Fourth Amendment interests is minimal, similar to the brief stops at fixed immigration checkpoints. Therefore, the surveys are reasonable even without any individualized suspicion.
Concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part - Justice Brennan
No as to the entire workforce, but Yes as to the individual employees. While the entire workforce was not continuously seized, the individual questioning of the employees did constitute an unreasonable seizure in violation of the Fourth Amendment. The majority’s conclusion that the encounters were consensual is a 'fantasy.' The surprise arrival of numerous agents, the guarding of exits, and the handcuffing of others created an intimidating atmosphere where a reasonable person would not have felt free to ignore the agents and walk away. These seizures were unreasonable because the agents lacked the required particularized, reasonable suspicion that the specific individuals questioned were in the country illegally.
Analysis:
This decision significantly strengthened the power of the INS to conduct workplace enforcement actions by characterizing them as non-coercive, consensual encounters rather than seizures. By finding no seizure occurred, the Court avoided applying the Fourth Amendment's reasonableness test, which would have required at least a 'reasonable suspicion' standard for individual questioning. The ruling makes it more difficult for workers to challenge such surveys on Fourth Amendment grounds, as they bear the burden of proving that the specific circumstances were so intimidating that a reasonable person would not have felt free to decline the encounter. It establishes that the workplace is a setting where employees may have a diminished expectation of being free from questioning by law enforcement.
