Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

jurisdictionliabilityappealcitizenship
plaintiffdefendantjurisdictiondamagesliabilityappealpleadiscriminationleaseregulationcitizenshipdeportationnaturalizationseizure

Related Cases

Jezierski v. Mukasey
View Case »
Thornburgh, In re; .
View Case »
Munoz de Real v. Holder
View Case »
Khulumani v. Barclay National Bank Ltd.
View Case »
Parada-Orellana v. Garland
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Morales v. Chadbourne

Facts

Ada Morales, a naturalized U.S. citizen born in Guatemala, was detained for 24 hours in May 2009 under an immigration detainer issued by ICE agents, despite being a U.S. citizen. The detainer incorrectly identified her as an alien and was issued without any inquiry into her citizenship status. Morales had previously been detained under a similar detainer in 2004, which also caused her significant personal loss. Following her detention in 2009, Morales filed a civil action against the ICE agents and their supervisors, alleging violations of her Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights.

Morales is a United States citizen and long-time resident of Rhode Island. Born in Guatemala, she immigrated to the United States in the 1980s and naturalized in 1995. Since then, on at least two occasions, she has been detained by government officials pursuant to an immigration detainer, which is a request from ICE to another law enforcement agency to detain a non-citizen up to 48 hours so that ICE may investigate whether the non-citizen is subject to deportation. The first incident took place in July 2004. Morales had been arrested by the Cranston, Rhode Island, Police Department at a local K-Mart on charges that were ultimately dismissed. Even though she was a U.S. citizen, ICE issued a detainer against Morales indicating that she was a non-citizen subject to removal. Morales was detained overnight pursuant to the detainer. Her extended detention caused her to miss a flight she had scheduled to visit relatives in Guatemala and to forfeit the $3,000 airfare. The second incident, and the basis for this action, occurred in May 2009. On May 1, 2009, Morales was arrested while playing with her children in her front yard by the Rhode Island State Police on a warrant for criminal charges relating to alleged misrepresentations in a state benefits application. She was transported to the police station, where a state police officer asked her where she was born and whether she was 'legal.' Morales responded that she was born in Guatemala and that she was a U.S. citizen. Morales was then transported to the Rhode Island Adult Correctional Institutions ('ACI'), where she was booked into custody. On May 4, 2009, ICE faxed an immigration detainer form to the ACI. The detainer incorrectly identified Morales as an alien whose nationality was Guatemalan, and stated that an '[i]nvestigation has been initiated to determine whether [Morales] is subject to removal from the United States.' The detainer further informed the ACI that '[f]ederal regulations (8 C.F.R. 287.7) require that you detain the alien for a period not to exceed 48 hours . . . to provide adequate time for DHS to assume custody of the alien.' The detainer was issued by Donaghy, an ICE agent based in ICE's Rhode Island Office. Donaghy was supervised by Riccio, the Resident-Agent-in-Charge of the Rhode Island office, and Chadbourne, the Field Office Director of the Boston Field Office, which has responsibility over ICE operations in Rhode Island. Before the detainer was issued, no ICE official interviewed Morales to ask whether she was a U.S. citizen, nor did anyone request documentation from her relating to her citizenship. ICE officials also failed to search federal immigration databases to obtain a copy of her citizenship application or certificate of naturalization. The same day that ICE sent the immigration detainer to the ACI, a state court ordered Morales released from criminal custody on personal recognizance. Instead of being released, however, Morales was re-booked into ACI custody, strip searched, and kept in jail for 24 more hours based solely on the ICE detainer. When she was notified that her continued detention was based on the detainer, Morales told multiple ACI employees that the detainer was issued in error because she is a U.S. citizen. The ACI employees disregarded her pleas, and she was kept in detention. On May 5, 2009, ICE agents arrived at the ACI and drove Morales to an ICE office in Warwick, Rhode Island. There, the ICE agents interviewed her, confirmed that she was a U.S. citizen, and released her to her family. Upon releasing her, an ICE agent apologized to Morales, but told her 'it could happen again in the future.' On April 24, 2012, Morales filed a civil damages action against defendants Donaghy, Riccio, and Chadbourne, as well as other federal and state defendants who are not parties to this appeal. Morales alleged, inter alia, that, by issuing the detainer against her, Donaghy violated her Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable seizures and her Fifth Amendment equal protection right to be free from discrimination on the basis of race, ethnicity, and national origin. She alleged that Chadbourne and Riccio knew or were deliberately indifferent to the fact that their subordinates routinely issued ICE detainers without probable cause, and formulated or condoned policies permitting the issuance of detainers without probable cause in violation of the Fourth Amendment.

Issue

Did the ICE agent have probable cause to issue an immigration detainer against Morales, and were the supervisors liable for allowing such detainers to be issued without probable cause?

Did the ICE agent have probable cause to issue an immigration detainer against Morales, and were the supervisors liable for allowing such detainers to be issued without probable cause?

Rule

Under the Fourth Amendment, an ICE agent requires probable cause to issue an immigration detainer, and supervisory liability can arise if supervisors are deliberately indifferent to constitutional violations by their subordinates.

Under the Fourth Amendment, an ICE agent requires probable cause to issue an immigration detainer, and supervisory liability can arise if supervisors are deliberately indifferent to constitutional violations by their subordinates.

Analysis

The court determined that the law was clearly established in 2009 that an ICE agent needed probable cause to issue an immigration detainer. The court found that the circumstances surrounding the issuance of the detainer against Morales did not meet the probable cause standard, and thus the agent was not entitled to qualified immunity. Furthermore, the court held that the supervisors could also be held liable for their failure to prevent the issuance of detainers without probable cause.

After review, we agree with Morales that the law was clearly established in 2009 that, under the Fourth Amendment, an ICE agent required probable cause to issue an immigration detainer. We, therefore, affirm the district court's denial of qualified immunity on Morales's Fourth Amendment claim against Donaghy on that issue. Because Donaghy's Fourth Amendment argument regarding the circumstances surrounding the detainer that he issued against Morales and his Fifth Amendment equal protection argument do not present pure issues of law, his appeal on these grounds must be dismissed for lack of appellate jurisdiction. Finally, because Morales has sufficiently alleged that supervisors Chadbourne and Riccio violated a clearly established Fourth Amendment right, we also affirm the district court's denial of qualified immunity on Morales's Fourth Amendment supervisory liability claim against them.

Conclusion

The court affirmed the denial of qualified immunity for the ICE agent and the supervisors, allowing Morales's claims to proceed. The court dismissed the appeal regarding the circumstances of the detainer and equal protection claims for lack of jurisdiction.

The court affirmed the denial of qualified immunity on plaintiff's Fourth Amendment claim against an ICE agent on the ground that the law was clearly established in 2009 that an ICE agent required probable cause to issue an immigration detainer. It dismissed his appeal on his Fourth Amendment argument and his Fifth Amendment equal protection argument. It affirmed the denial of qualified immunity on the Fourth Amendment supervisory liability claim.

Who won?

Ada Morales prevailed in the case as the court upheld the denial of qualified immunity for the ICE agent and the supervisors, establishing that the law regarding probable cause for immigration detainers was clearly established.

Ada Morales prevailed in the case as the court upheld the denial of qualified immunity for the ICE agent and the supervisors, establishing that the law regarding probable cause for immigration detainers was clearly established.

You must be