Estrada, et al v. State of Rhode Island, et al

Filing 920100204

Opinion

var gAgent = navigator.userAgent.toLowerCase()
var gWindows = ( (gAgent.indexOf( "win" ) != -1 ) || ( gAgent.indexOf( "16bit" ) != -1 ) )
var gIE = ( gAgent.indexOf( "msie" ) != -1 )
var bInlineFloats = ( gWindows && gIE && ( parseInt( navigator.appVersion ) >= 4 ) )
var floatwnd = 0

var WPFootnote1 = 'Although the briefs in this case refer to a "Guilfredo E.\
Muñoz," at deposition, Mr. Muñoz explained that his first surname\
is Camay and his second surname is Muñoz.\
'

var WPFootnote2 = 'The facts are drawn from deposition testimony of all parties, as\
well as exhibits submitted to the district court in support of the\
motions for summary judgment. Because this case comes to us after\
a grant of summary judgment, we present the facts in the light most\
favorable to the non-moving party, and draw all reasonable\
inferences in that party\'s favor. Fennell v. First Step Designs,\
Ltd., 83 F.3d 526, 534 (1st Cir. 1996).\
'

var WPFootnote3 = 'The validity of the stop is not contested in this appeal.\
'

var WPFootnote4 = 'A ball of some sort fell out of the van as Officer Chabot opened\
the door. In the videotape of the stop, Officer Chabot is seen\
picking up the ball and asking: "Ehh, make a good player huh?"\
'

var WPFootnote5 = 'There appears to be a question as to how many passengers were in\
the van. In their brief, appellees assert that there were fourteen\
people in the van, but in the enhanced audio of the stop, Officer\
Chabot is heard saying there are fifteen people. In their briefs,\
Appellants contend there were only twelve people in the van, the\
total number of persons who now appeal. However, in his\
deposition, Tamup states that he was transporting fourteen\
passengers. In any event, this is not a material fact.\
'

var WPFootnote6 = 'Plaintiffs argue that there is a material dispute as to when\
Officer Chabot inquired about the immigration status of the\
passengers. Plaintiffs note that Officer Chabot, Tamup, and at\
least one other Plaintiff testified in their deposition that\
Officer Chabot made such requests and inquiries prior to returning\
to his cruiser the first time and conducting the computer checks. \
However, other Plaintiffs testified that Officer Chabot gathered\
Tamup\'s license, returned to his cruiser, and did not ask for the\
identifications until he returned. Because this dispute is not\
material to our analysis, we present the facts as stated by both\
Officer Chabot and Plaintiff Tamup, who translated Chabot\'s\
requests to the passengers.\
'

var WPFootnote7 = 'Defendants cite to deposition testimony of Plaintiff that they\
were nervous during the encounter with Officer Chabot. All of the\
testimony cited, however, relates to the Plaintiffs\' referring to\
their own state of mind. We have been unable to find any evidence\
in the deposition testimony of Officer Chabot that he observed or\
recognized any nervousness on the part of the passengers in the\
van.\
'

var WPFootnote8 = 'The justification given by Officer Chabot for this pat-down at\
his deposition was that: \
\
              I had 14 people in the van. And then once Mr. Tamup is in\
the van and he comes out of the van, I have no idea what\
he might have brought with him from the van, whether it\
be a knife, whether it be a weapon of some sort, so for\
my safety I conducted a Terry pat.\
'

var WPFootnote9 = 'Tamup testified that he told Officer Chabot that no one in the\
van had a green card or work papers:\
\
              Q: Did he [Officer Chabot] ask you whether anyone else in\
the van had a green card?\
              A: Yes. He said that if they were going to work, they had\
to have their papers, that if they worked here, they have\
to have a green card.\
              Q: Did you tell him that there was -- no one in the van\
had a green card or work papers?\
              A: We told him we didn\'t have anything.\
\
While it is unclear whether the above exchange indicates that Tamup\
told Officer Chabot they were not carrying their green cards\
currently, or that they simply did not have them, Estrada testified\
as follows:\
\
              Q: You said that the trooper asked you all in the van\
whether you had permission or license to be in the\
country, and someone said no?\
              A: No. When he asked, we all said no.\
              Q: Everyone in the van said the word, no?\
              A: No. Not everybody. Just with their faces.\
              Q: Okay. Some people in the van actually said the word,\
no?\
              A: I don\'t remember. I know that I was one of those who\
said no.\
              Q: So you said the word, no?\
              A: Yes.\
'

var WPFootnote10 = 'Officer Chabot testified at his deposition that the passengers\
voluntarily acquiesced to his request to drive to the ICE office in\
Providence. In his police report, Officer Chabot stated that he\
attempted to give Tamup directions to the ICE office, but was\
unable to do so due to the language barrier, at which point Officer\
Chabot agreed to escort the van to the ICE office. Because of the\
procedural posture of this case, we take the facts in the light\
most favorable to the Plaintiffs.\
'

var WPFootnote11 = 'Officer Chabot denies these allegations but because of the\
procedural posture of this case, we take them as true.\
'

var WPFootnote12 = 'The officers requested that Tamup stop the vehicle at one point\
during the drive so they could verify that the doors were locked,\
but this is not an issue in this case.\
'

var WPFootnote13 = 'Plaintiffs only appeal the issues that involve Officer Chabot.\
'

var WPFootnote14 = 'Our Circuit had previously articulated this two-part test as a\
three-part test that remained faithful to the substance of the test\
articulated by the Supreme Court. See, e.g., Bergeron v. Cabral,\
560 F.3d 1, 7 (1st Cir. 2009). However, we recently adopted the\
"[Supreme Court\'s two-part test and abandon[ed] our previous usage\
of a three-step analysis." Maldonado, 568 F.3d at 269.\
'

var WPFootnote15 = 'Compare United States v. Chaney, 584 F.3d 20, 27 (1st Cir. 2009)\
(finding that officer\'s inquiries into car passenger\'s identity did\
not violate passenger\'s rights) with United States v. Henderson,\
463 F.3d 27, 31 (1st Cir. 2006) (declining to decide whether an\
officer could demand a passenger\'s identification).\
'

var WPFootnote16 = 'Plaintiffs contend that this case is distinguishable from\
Muehler because of the timing of Officer Chabot\'s questions. They\
allege that Officer Chabot did not ask about Plaintiffs\'\
immigration status until after he had checked the status of Tamup\'s\
license and conducted a criminal background check, as well as\
contacted ICE. When Officer Chabot contacted ICE, Plaintiffs\
argue, the purpose of the traffic stop was complete and the further\
questioning about immigration status unlawfully prolonged the stop. \
We note that by a number of witness accounts, including those of\
Tamup and Officer Chabot, Officer Chabot asked about Plaintiff\'s\
immigration status before running Tamup\'s license. But even if\
Officer Chabot did not pose the question until after returning\
Tamup\'s license, it was not clearly established law that the brief\
exchange unreasonably prolonged the traffic stop.\
'

var WPFootnote17 = 'We are by no means condoning the type of threat alleged to have\
been made here -- one that for purposes of summary judgment, we\
take as true.\
'

var WPFootnote18 = 'At the district court, all Plaintiffs sought to challenge\
Tamup\'s pat downs. The district court correctly ruled that only\
Tamup had standing to challenge the pat-downs, and Plaintiffs do\
not challenge this ruling. See United States v. Sowers, 136 F.3d\
24, 28-29 (1st Cir. 1998) (holding that appellant who was not\
himself subjected to a pat down search did not have standing to\
raise a Fourth Amendment claim on the basis of said search).\
'

var WPFootnote19 = 'Consular identification cards are issued by several foreign\
governments, including Guatemala\'s, and identify their bearers as\
citizens of the issuing country. See, e.g., H.R. Rep. 108-804, at\
97-98 (2005).\
'

var WPFootnote20 = 'The majority opinion\'s reliance on plaintiffs\' own admissions\
that they told Officer Chabot they were illegal aliens is proper,\
but I do not rely on it because Officer Chabot did not testify they\
said so and because the admission is not contained in the police\
report.\
'

function WPShow( WPid, WPtext )
{
if( bInlineFloats )
eval( "document.all." + WPid + ".style.visibility = 'visible'" );
else
{
if( floatwnd == 0 || floatwnd.closed )
floatwnd = window.open( "", "comment", "toolbars=0,width=600,height=200,resizable=1,scrollbars=1,dependent=1" );
floatwnd.document.open( "text/html", "replace" );
floatwnd.document.write( "\r\n" );
floatwnd.document.write( " p { margin-top:0px; margin-bottom:1px; } \r\n" );
floatwnd.document.write( "\r\n" );
floatwnd.document.write( WPtext );
floatwnd.document.write( 'Close');
floatwnd.document.write( "