United States v. Lugo
2003 WL 22439738, 289 F. Supp. 2d 790 (2003)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Routine questioning of an inmate about biographical information, including citizenship and alien status, by an immigration agent does not constitute a 'custodial interrogation' requiring Miranda warnings, provided the inmate is incarcerated for a non-immigration offense and the agent has no specific reason to suspect the questioning will elicit a criminally incriminating response.
Facts:
- Rafael Nambo Lugo was serving time in the Cameron County Jail for a state offense.
- While Nambo Lugo was incarcerated, a U.S. Border Patrol agent, as part of the BORCAP program, questioned him and other inmates in a line.
- The agent asked Nambo Lugo for his name, date of birth, citizenship, and alien status without first providing Miranda warnings.
- Based on Nambo Lugo's answers indicating he was in the U.S. illegally, the agent placed an immigration detainer on him.
- Upon his release from the county jail, Nambo Lugo was immediately transported to a Border Patrol office for processing.
- At the Border Patrol office, agents provided Nambo Lugo with his Miranda rights in Spanish, both orally and in writing.
- Nambo Lugo signed a form waiving his right to an attorney.
- After signing the waiver, Nambo Lugo admitted to the agents that he had entered the United States by swimming across the Rio Grande River.
Procedural Posture:
- The United States charged Rafael Nambo Lugo in a U.S. Magistrate Court with unlawfully entering the United States in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1325(a)(1).
- Nambo Lugo, through appointed counsel, entered a plea of not guilty.
- Defendant filed a Motion to Suppress Statements, which was superseded by a Second Motion to Suppress Statements, arguing his Fifth Amendment rights were violated.
- The court conducted a bench trial and considered the motion to suppress concurrently with the trial on the merits.
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 questioning an incarcerated individual about their name, date of birth, citizenship, and alien status, without providing Miranda warnings, constitute a custodial interrogation that violates the Fifth Amendment when the individual is in custody for an unrelated state offense?
Opinions:
Majority - Recio, Magistrate Judge
No. Questioning an incarcerated individual about their citizenship and alien status without providing Miranda warnings does not violate the Fifth Amendment under these circumstances because it does not constitute a 'custodial interrogation.' Although the defendant was clearly in 'custody' by virtue of being in jail, the questioning did not amount to an 'interrogation.' Interrogation under Miranda refers to express questioning or its functional equivalent that police should know is 'reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response.' Here, the BORCAP agents' questions were part of a routine, non-discretionary process where every inmate was asked the same basic biographical questions. Nambo Lugo was being held on an unrelated state offense, not an immigration charge, so the agents had no specific reason to believe their questions would lead to a criminal prosecution. Following the reasoning of the Ninth Circuit in United States v. Salgado, because the questioning was routine and the agents were mere fact-finders with no discretion to prosecute, the questions were not reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response for a criminal violation, and thus Miranda warnings were not required.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the scope of 'interrogation' under Miranda within the context of immigration enforcement in local jails. By adopting the reasoning from the Ninth Circuit's Salgado case, the court establishes that routine, biographical questioning of inmates about citizenship is permissible without Miranda warnings, so long as the inmate is held on unrelated charges. This creates a significant exception that allows immigration officials to conduct widespread screening of incarcerated populations for administrative purposes. The ruling effectively narrows the application of Miranda protections for inmates when questioned by federal agents about matters unrelated to the cause of their immediate confinement, distinguishing administrative fact-finding from questioning designed to build a criminal case.
