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

lawsuitplaintiffdefendantinjunctionleasebailcommon law
plaintiffdefendantstatuteinjunctiontrialmotionwillleasemisdemeanorbail

Related Cases

Habyarimana v. Kagame
View Case »
Lafontant v. Aristide
View Case »
Moreno Galvez v. Cuccinelli
View Case »
Badalamenti v. Department of State
View Case »
Quaid v. Kerry
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Tenorio-Serrano v. Driscoll

Facts

Guillermo Tenorio-Serrano was arrested for DUI and held at the Coconino County Jail. After his bail was set at $2,000, he was informed that he would not be released due to an ICE detainer lodged against him. The Sheriff's policy required that individuals with ICE detainers be held for up to 48 hours after they would otherwise be released, which led Tenorio-Serrano to file a lawsuit seeking a preliminary injunction against this policy.

On December 11, 2017, Plaintiff was arrested for allegedly driving under the influence in violation of Arizona misdemeanor statutes and was confined in CCDF as a pretrial detainee. The same day, Plaintiff's sister visited CCDF to inquire whether Plaintiff would be released if the $2,000 bail was posted. A CCDF employee told her that payment of the bail would not result in Plaintiff's release because an ICE detainer had been lodged against him.

Issue

Whether the Coconino County Sheriff's policy of detaining individuals for up to 48 hours on ICE detainers after they have posted bail is lawful under state and federal law.

Whether the Coconino County Sheriff's policy of continuing to hold pre-trial detainees after they have satisfied all conditions for release on their state charges is unlawful because the Sheriff lacks authority under state and federal law to detain on the basis of an ICE warrant and detainer, and such detention violates the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and Article II, 8 of the Arizona Constitution.

Rule

A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy that requires the plaintiff to show a likelihood of success on the merits, irreparable harm, a balance of equities in their favor, and that the injunction is in the public interest.

A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy never awarded as a matter of right. To obtain a preliminary injunction, a plaintiff must show 'that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.'

Analysis

The court analyzed the likelihood of success on the merits of Tenorio-Serrano's claims against the Sheriff's policy. It considered whether the Sheriff had the authority to detain individuals based on ICE detainers and whether such detention violated the Fourth Amendment. The court found that the policy was consistent with the Sheriff's common law powers and did not violate constitutional protections.

In addressing these arguments on a preliminary injunction motion, the Court's task is to assess probabilities `whether Plaintiff is likely to succeed on these claims. The Court is not making a final decision on the merits. That decision must await a more complete record and more thorough briefing.

Conclusion

The court denied Tenorio-Serrano's request for a preliminary injunction, concluding that he was unlikely to succeed on the merits of his claims against the Sheriff's policy.

The Court will deny the request for a preliminary injunction.

Who won?

Coconino County Sheriff James Driscoll and the other defendants prevailed because the court found that the Sheriff's policy was lawful and did not violate Tenorio-Serrano's rights.

Defendants oppose the request for injunctive relief (Docs. 22, 28), as does the United States, which has filed a detailed statement of interest pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 517 and 518.

You must be