United States v. Trujillo-Alvarez
900 F.Supp.2d 1167, 2012 WL 5295854, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 154779 (2012)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When the Executive Branch chooses to pursue a federal criminal prosecution against an alien defendant instead of immediate removal, it must comply with the Bail Reform Act. An immigration detainer issued under the Immigration and Nationality Act cannot be used to keep a defendant in custody for the purpose of a criminal trial if a judicial officer has ordered that defendant's pretrial release.
Facts:
- Enrique Alvarez-Trujillo, a citizen of Mexico, had lived in the Portland, Oregon area for over 18 years.
- He lived with his wife of 15 years and their three minor U.S. citizen children, and was their sole financial support through stable employment.
- In 1993, Alvarez-Trujillo was deported from the United States following a 1989 drug trafficking conviction.
- On August 8, 2012, Alvarez-Trujillo was arrested for driving with a suspended license, which brought him to the attention of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).
- On August 27, 2012, an ICE agent arrested Alvarez-Trujillo, reinstated his 1993 deportation order, and lodged an immigration detainer against him.
- The U.S. Attorney's Office, in coordination with ICE, chose to pursue federal criminal prosecution against Alvarez-Trujillo for illegal reentry.
- On September 5, 2012, a federal grand jury indicted Alvarez-Trujillo for illegal reentry in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a).
Procedural Posture:
- Enrique Alvarez-Trujillo was indicted in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon on one count of illegal reentry.
- At his arraignment, a U.S. Magistrate Judge granted his request for a detention/release hearing.
- Following the hearing, U.S. Magistrate Judge Acosta found Alvarez-Trujillo was not a flight risk or danger and signed an Order Setting Conditions of Release.
- The government moved to stay the execution of the release order, which Magistrate Judge Acosta denied.
- The government did not appeal the release order to an Article III district judge.
- ICE agents took Alvarez-Trujillo into custody under a previously lodged detainer and transported him to an immigration detention center in Washington state.
- Alvarez-Trujillo filed a motion in the U.S. District Court for an order to show cause why ICE should not be found in contempt of court for violating the release order.
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 Executive Branch violate the Bail Reform Act by continuing to detain a criminal defendant under an immigration detainer after a judicial officer has determined the defendant is not a flight risk or danger to the community and has ordered the defendant's pretrial release?
Opinions:
Majority - Simon, District Judge.
Yes. When the Executive Branch elects to defer removal in favor of criminal prosecution, it must adhere to the laws governing that prosecution, including the Bail Reform Act (BRA). The BRA mandates pretrial release for a defendant unless a judicial officer finds they are a flight risk or a danger to the community. Here, a Magistrate Judge found Alvarez-Trujillo was neither and ordered his release. The government cannot use a civil immigration detainer under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) to circumvent a judicial release order under the BRA and achieve pretrial detention for the purpose of a criminal trial. The 'risk of flight' contemplated by the BRA involves a defendant's own volition to flee, not the possibility of removal by another government agency. The Executive Branch must choose: either remove the defendant under the INA or prosecute him under the BRA and respect the court's release order. It cannot use one statute to nullify a defendant's rights under the other.
Analysis:
This opinion clarifies the hierarchy of law when criminal procedure and immigration enforcement conflict. It establishes that the Executive Branch's prosecutorial discretion is not absolute; choosing to prosecute subjects the government to the rules of the criminal justice system, including the Bail Reform Act's presumption of release. The decision prevents the government from using a civil immigration detainer as a tool for pretrial detention in a criminal case, thereby safeguarding a defendant's statutory right to release and constitutional rights to due process and ability to prepare a defense. This forces the Executive Branch to make a clear and timely choice between two distinct legal paths—deportation or prosecution—and prevents it from holding a defendant in a legal limbo that subverts judicial authority.
Unlock the full brief for United States v. Trujillo-Alvarez