United States v. Bautista-Ramos

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. JOSE LUIS BAUTISTA-RAMOS, Defendant.

Case No. 18-CR-4066-LTS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA WESTERN DIVISION

October 15, 2018

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Defendant Jose Luis Bautista-Ramos moves to suppress fingerprint evidence and statements he made after he was stopped and arrested by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) deportation officers. Doc. 7. He primarily argues that ICE officers lacked reason to believe he posed an escape risk and therefore violated 8 U.S.C. § 1357(a) by arresting him without a warrant. He also argues that ICE violated his rights by conducting a traffic stop of his vehicle. The United States (the Government) resists. Doc. 10. I recommend, with some reservation, denying the motion to suppress (Doc. 7).

I. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On June 26, 2018, ICE officers arrested Bautista-Ramos. He remained in ICE custody for three weeks until I signed a criminal complaint on July 18, 2018, finding probable cause that Bautista-Ramos had unlawfully reentered the United States after previously being removed, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), and issued a warrant for his arrest. MJ Docs. 1, 3.¹ The United States Marshals Service then took Bautista-Ramos into custody following his initial appearance in this court. The grand jury issuedan indictment on July 24, 2018, charging Bautista-Ramos with one count of unlawful reentry after removal following an aggravated felony conviction, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b)(2). Doc. 2.

Bautista-Ramos filed a motion to suppress (Doc. 7), and I held a hearing on the motion on September 12, 2018 (Doc. 13). Deportation Officer Corey McMahon testified at the hearing. I also admitted three exhibits submitted by Bautista-Ramos, and seven exhibits submitted by the Government:

• Defendant's Exhibit A (Doc. 7-2) and Government's Exhibit 1 (Doc. 10-1) - Deportation Officer McMahon's report of Bautista-Ramos's June 2018 arrest

• Defendant's Exhibit B (Doc. 7-3) and Government's Exhibit 6 (Doc. 10-6) - ICE form containing Bautista-Ramos's sworn statement with two fingerprints given shortly after his June 2018 arrest

• Defendant's Exhibit C (Doc. 7-4) - ICE form with Bautista-Ramos's fingerprints taken shortly after his June 2018 arrest

• Government's Exhibit 2 (Doc. 10-2) - forms and documents related to Bautista-Ramos's prior removals

• Government's Exhibit 3 (Doc. 10-3) - ICE forms related to the initial investigation of Bautista-Ramos in January 2018, including "leads"

• Government's Exhibit 4 (Doc. 10-4) - ICE forms issued after Bautista-Ramos's June 2018 arrest, including a Notice of Intent to Reinstate Prior Order and Warrant of Deportation

• Government's Exhibit 5 (Doc. 10-5) - Bautista-Ramos's fingerprints and photograph obtained by the U.S Marshals after they took Bautista-Ramos into custody in July 2018

• Government's Exhibit 7 (Doc. 10-7) - documents ICE officers obtained from Bautista-Ramos's employer after his June 2018 arrest.

II. BACKGROUND²

In January 2018, deportation officers at the local ICE office in Sioux City, Iowa, received "leads" regarding Bautista-Ramos's presence in northwest Iowa from the National Criminal Analysis and Targeting Center. These leads indicated that Bautista-Ramos's "possible daughter[]" and "possible spouse" (both United States citizens) had activated utilities at an address in Orange City, Iowa, in October and November 2017; that Bautista-Ramos's "possible spouse" owned a restaurant located at an address in Sheldon, Iowa, with an active phone number; and that Osceola County, Iowa, property tax records from 2017/2018 indicated Bautista-Ramos's "possible spouse" owned property in Ashton, Iowa. Doc. 10-3 at 4-6. The leads also indicated that Iowa Secretary of State records revealed Bautista-Ramos was the "co-signer/debtor" for his "possible spouse's" restaurant in Sheldon, Iowa, since the initial filing in 2006 through the most recent filing on December 3, 2017. Doc. 10-3 at 5. There was also an Iowa address for another of Bautista-Ramos's "possible daughters" (also a United States citizen) and the address of a "possible relative." Doc. 10-3 at 6. Through the leads and his own research, Deportation Officer McMahon learned that Bautista-Ramos had previously been removed from the United States in 1985 and again in 1993 (the latter removal as a result of an aggravated felony conviction) and that he had never obtained permission to return to the United States. See also Doc. 10-2.

On June 26, 2018, Deportation Officer McMahon and other ICE officers went searching for individuals that they had received leads about, ultimately arresting eleven to fifteen people that day (none pursuant to a warrant). While looking for another individual in Sioux Center, Iowa, an ICE officer received information from a fusion center³ that Bautista-Ramos worked at JTV Manufacturing in Sutherland, Iowa, and that he drove a sports utility vehicle (SUV) that was dark in color. Deportation OfficerMcMahon and three other ICE officers went to JTV Manufacturing to investigate. Deportation Officer McMahon stayed on the perimeter road near JTV Manufacturing to stop Bautista-Ramos in case he fled, while other ICE officers went to make contact with Bautista-Ramos.

Deportation Officer McMahon and the other ICE officers knew what Bautista-Ramos looked like through documents from his prior removal proceedings in 1993, which included a picture of Bautista-Ramos (which appears to be from 2001) and a description of his appearance, including height, weight, that he wears glasses, and that he has tattoos on his arms. See Doc. 10-3 at 1, 4. Within ten minutes of their arrival at JTV Manufacturing, ICE officers saw an individual, whose appearance matched the picture of Bautista-Ramos, leave the building and walk toward a dark SUV in the parking lot. The ICE officers stopped Bautista-Ramos, "identified who he was verbally by his name," and asked whether he was in the country illegally, to which he responded, yes. ICE officers arrested Bautista-Ramos and took him into ICE custody, where his fingerprints were taken and he made incriminating statements. Later, the United States Marshals took Bautista-Ramos's fingerprints when they took him into custody on the criminal complaint. Doc. 10-5.

There is a factual dispute over the timing of when the ICE officers stopped Bautista-Ramos. The only officer to testify, Deportation Officer McMahon, did not witness officers stopping Bautista-Ramos, although he listened to the encounter via cell phone. He testified that "to [his] knowledge," Bautista-Ramos had opened the door to his vehicle and was standing near it when ICE officers began talking to him. Deportation Officer McMahon's report of the arrest, however, indicates:

[A deportation officer] observed [Bautista-Ramos] who matched the target[']s description walking toward vehicle. The vehicle was immediately stopped in the parking lot. [ICE officers] approached the vehicle and identified themselves. The vehicle was occupied by one male . . . .

Doc. 7-2 at 2. On cross-examination, he explained that the description in his report is "the information that was provided to [him] at the time of the arrest" by the ICE officersinvolved in the arrest. Although I fully credit Deportation Officer McMahon's testimony that he now believes Bautista-Ramos was stopped before he entered his vehicle, no testimony was elicited about how he came to that belief—e.g., did he hear differently from the officers involved in the arrest or from another source? and did he learn this new information prior to or after Bautista-Ramos filed his motion to suppress?⁴ I have no evidence establishing the credibility of Officer McMahon's source for the change in information. Ultimately, I decline to resolve this factual issue; I will assume that ICE officers stopped Bautista-Ramos's vehicle in the parking lot after he had driven a short ways, because it does not affect my recommendation.

III. DISCUSSION

Bautista-Ramos moves to suppress the incriminating statements he made after his arrest, as well as the fingerprint evidence obtained by ICE and the United States Marshals. He argues that ICE officers lacked statutory authority to conduct a traffic stop of his vehicle and to arrest him without a warrant.

A. Traffic Stop

At the hearing, Bautista-Ramos conceded that prior to stopping his vehicle, the ICE officers had probable cause that he had unlawfully reentered the United States after being removed.⁵ Nevertheless, Bautista-Ramos argues that ICE officers may not conducta warrantless traffic stop unless they are within one hundred miles of an international border.

Bautista-Ramos relies on 8 U.S.C. § 1357(a)(3), which provides that ICE officers "have power without warrant . . . within a reasonable distance from any external boundary of the United States, to board and search for aliens any . . . vehicle." "Reasonable distance" is defined by regulation as no more than "100 air miles from any external boundary of the United States." 8 C.F.R. § 287.1(a)(2). Thus, Bautista-Ramos argues that because the ICE officers were more than one hundred miles away from a border, they could not stop his vehicle, despite having probable cause that he had committed a felony immigration offense.

The Government responds that § 1357(a)(3) is inapplicable here and that ICE officers may conduct warrantless traffic stops under 8 U.S.C. § 1357(a)(1), which provides that ICE officers "have power without warrant . . . to interrogate any alien or person believed to be an alien as to his right to be or remain in the United States." In United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U.S. 873, 876-77 (1975), the Supreme Court interpreted both § 1357(a)(1) and § 1357(a)(3), which the Government argued permitted ICE officers to conduct traffic stops without meeting the requirements of the Fourth Amendment. The Supreme Court rejected this argument, holding that "[t]he effect of [its] decision is to limit...