United States District Court, D. Arizona
G. CAMPBELL UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
is charged with illegal reentry of a removed alien under 8
U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b)(1). Defendant was removed from
the United States in 2010, and was found at a Motel 6 in
Phoenix, Arizona, in June of 2017. He has filed a motion to
suppress (Doc. 13) and a motion to dismiss (Doc. 14).
Motion to Suppress.
provides the following factual background for his motion to
On June 14, 2017, the Immigration and Customs Enforcement
(ICE) Phoenix Mobile Criminal Alien Team Unit, received
information that Mr. Munoz had checked into the Motel 6 on
52nd Drive in Phoenix. They were tipped off by employees at
Motel 6 that he had checked into the hotel after he had used
a Mexican driver license to check into the motel. Mr. Munoz
did not have any outstanding warrants nor was he committing a
federal, local, or state crime, or under suspicion of having
committed such a crime. By all accounts he was targeted for
having a Spanish surname and using a foreign identification -
a proxy for alienage.
Knowing he had checked into room #214, two ICE agents knocked
on the door. Mr. Munoz peeked through the window and saw the
ICE agents dressed in civilian clothes. They waived for him
to open the door. He did and the agents walked into room
#214, without a warrant and without his consent. They
immediately asked him his name and he told them. The agents
then followed up by asking him if there was anyone else in
the room, to put on his clothes, and handcuffed him. In less
than five minutes the agents escorted him out of the room and
into their squad car. He was transported to the ICE field
office and fingerprinted confirming his criminal and
immigration history. Based on this information, the U.S.
Attorney's Office later filed a criminal complaint
alleging he violated 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), Illegal Reentry
of Removed Alien.
Doc. 13 at 3.
contends that his identity can be suppressed under the Fifth
Amendment because the agents failed to advise him of his
Miranda rights before asking his name. To address
this argument, the Court will review a number of cases that
have addressed suppression of a defendant's identity in
§ 1326 cases.
Court begins by noting this general guidance from the Supreme
Asking questions is an essential part of police
investigations. In the ordinary course a police officer is
free to ask a person for identification without implicating
the Fourth Amendment. Interrogation relating to one's
identity or a request for identification by the police does
not, by itself, constitute a Fourth Amendment seizure.
Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial Dist. Court of Nev., Humboldt
Cty., 542 U.S. 177, 185 (2004) (quotation marks,
citation, and brackets omitted).
United States v. Del Toro Gudino, 376 F.3d 997 (9th
Cir. 2004), the Ninth Circuit provided this explanation of
circuit case law:
Our cases treat identity different from other kinds of
evidence. Where mere identity is involved, the relevant
circuit authority is United States v. Guzman-Bruno[,
27 F.3d 429 (9th Cir. 1994)]. Guzman-Bruno, like the
case at bar, was a criminal prosecution under 8 U.S.C. §
1326. Like the case at bar, the defendant in
Guzman-Bruno argued that all evidence of his
identity learned in connection with his illegal arrest should
be suppressed. We disagreed, reasoning that prior Supreme
Court and Ninth Circuit precedent “clearly foreclose[d]
Guzman-Bruno's attempt to suppress the fact ...