United States v. Gary Bowley
435 F.3d 426, 2006 WL 177224, 2006 U.S. App. LEXIS 1860 (2006)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The 'body' or identity of a defendant, along with official government-maintained immigration records, is generally not suppressible as a fruit of an unlawful arrest in a criminal prosecution for illegal reentry, unless the unlawful arrest involves egregious violations of the Fourth Amendment that transgress notions of fundamental fairness.
Facts:
- In early August 2004, Sergeant Bernard Hendricks of the Virgin Islands Police Department (VIPD) investigated armed robberies in the Coral Bay area of St. John.
- Hendricks received information from individuals, who had previously provided reliable information, that Gary Bowley was involved in these robberies and other illegal activities, including drug dealing.
- On August 16, 2004, at approximately 11:30 a.m., Hendricks and another VIPD officer drove to Bowley's residence.
- Upon arriving, the officers called to Bowley, who came out and spoke with them, and they asked him if he had any documents showing he was lawfully present in the United States.
- Bowley admitted he was in the U.S. illegally and gave the officers a Jamaican passport containing his photograph and the name “Junior Anthony Miller.”
- Hendricks then asked Bowley if he would accompany them to the police station, and Bowley agreed, but he was subsequently handcuffed, transported to the police station in a police vehicle, and held overnight in a cell.
- The next day, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents took Bowley to St. Thomas, where his fingerprints were electronically scanned and matched to the fingerprint records of “Gary Bowley,” revealing a prior deportation on November 17, 2000, following convictions for selling marijuana, attempted robbery, possession of a weapon, and bail jumping.
- After matching the fingerprints, an ICE agent advised Bowley of his Miranda rights, and Bowley told the agent that he did not want to make a statement, but an ICE agent subsequently questioned him about biographical data.
Procedural Posture:
- A criminal information was filed charging Bowley with one count of illegally reentering the United States after having been previously deported, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), (b)(2).
- Bowley filed a motion in the district court to suppress all evidence obtained from him, including his statement that he was illegally in the United States, his passport, his fingerprints, and post-Miranda statements.
- The district court initially denied Bowley's motion in part, allowing his admission of illegal presence and his Jamaican passport based on reasonable suspicion for investigative detention. However, the court subsequently ruled that Bowley's prolonged detention (handcuffed, transported to station, held overnight) constituted an unlawful arrest for a misdemeanor not committed in the officers' presence. Consequently, the court granted Bowley's motion in part, suppressing all evidence obtained after this unlawful arrest, including the Jamaican passport, fingerprint scans, and biographical information.
- The government did not appeal this initial suppression order.
- At the beginning of trial, the government proposed to prove Bowley's illegal reentry using the warrant of deportation from his immigration file and testimony from federal agents who participated in his prior deportation.
- Bowley moved in limine to exclude this evidence, arguing it was precluded by the district court's prior suppression order.
- The district court construed the government's opposition as a motion to reconsider its original suppression order, granted reconsideration, but ultimately denied the motion on the merits, ruling that the elements of the charged crime, including Bowley's identity, must be proved using untainted evidence, and that the discovery of his identity was the fruit of his illegal arrest, rejecting the government's arguments of lawful ICE custody, routine booking, and inevitable discovery.
- The government appealed the district court's June 8, 2005, suppression order (reaffirmed upon reconsideration) to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
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 the Fourth Amendment provide a basis to suppress an illegal alien's immigration file or identity information (such as fingerprints and deportation records) as fruit of an unlawful arrest by local police when later used in a criminal prosecution for illegal reentry, absent egregious police misconduct?
Opinions:
Majority - McKee, Circuit Judge
No, the Fourth Amendment does not provide a basis for an alien to suppress his or her immigration file or information in that file, even if initially discovered through an unlawful arrest, absent egregious circumstances. The Supreme Court in INS v. Lopez-Mendoza (1984) stated that "[t]he ‘body’ or identity of a defendant... is never itself suppressible as a fruit of an unlawful arrest," although it qualified this by noting it was not considering "egregious violations of Fourth Amendment or other liberties that might transgress notions of fundamental fairness." The Court finds no such egregious transgression in this case. Furthermore, other courts of appeals have consistently refused to suppress a defendant’s immigration file or identity in criminal prosecutions for illegal reentry under 8 U.S.C. § 1326. An alien has no possessory or proprietary interest, nor a reasonable expectation of privacy, in a government-maintained immigration file. Therefore, absent egregious circumstances, the Fourth Amendment does not provide a basis to suppress an alien's immigration file or the information it contains.
Analysis:
This case significantly reinforces the principle that a defendant's identity and government-held records are generally not subject to the exclusionary rule, even when the initial discovery stems from an unlawful arrest, as articulated in INS v. Lopez-Mendoza. By extending this principle explicitly to criminal prosecutions for illegal reentry, the Third Circuit limits the ability of defendants to shield their true identities and prior immigration histories from being used as evidence. This ruling streamlines prosecutions for recidivist immigration offenses and underscores the judiciary's reluctance to apply the exclusionary rule to a defendant's fundamental identity, reserving suppression only for instances of truly egregious constitutional violations that offend fundamental fairness.
