USA v. MANZO-JURADO
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals today released an amended order in USA v. MANZO-JURADO, No. 05-30186, a criminal appeal. The panel consisted of William C. Canby, Jr., Ronald M. Gould, and Carlos T. Bea, Circuit Judges.
BEA, Circuit Judge:
We revisit the important issue of when information available to officers creates a reasonable suspicion that an individual is in the United States illegally so as to justify an investigatory stop. Given the particular facts of this case-individuals’ appearance as a Hispanic work crew, inability to speak English, proximity to the border, and unsuspicious behavior–law enforcement lacked reasonable suspicion that Appellant and his co-workers were in this country illegally. I. On November 20, 2004, Manzo-Jurado and five of his coworkers attended the high school football state championship . . .
The disposition filed on June 20, 2006 and available at 2006 WL 1679413 is AMENDED as follows. At page 2, note 3 of the opinion, the following sentence shall be deleted in its entirety: At oral argument, the Government conceded that Manzo-Jurado was seized within the meaning of Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968), and its progeny, so as to require reasonable suspicion. At page 2, note 3 of the disposition, the following sentences shall be inserted to replace the deleted sentence: Manzo-Jurado was seized within the meaning of Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S. Ct. 1868, 20 L. Ed.2d 889 (1968), because Kaul’s “show hands order [to the truck occupants] was a `meaningful interference’ with [Manzo-Jurado’s] freedom.” See . . .
GOULD, Circuit Judge, dissenting:
The majority opinion concludes that the factors at issue in this case did not give a particularized and objective basis for the agents’ reasonable suspicion that any member of ManzoJurado’s group was an illegal immigrant, and thus that the temporary seizure of the vehicle and questioning of its occupants was unconstitutional. However, our assessment of whether a detaining officer has such a basis must take into consideration the officer’s inferences from the information available to him or her, even when those inferences might elude a person without similar experience and training. See United States v. Arvizu, 534 U.S. 266, 274 (2002); United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U.S. 873, 885 (1975). I view the Supreme Court’s language in Arvizu to require some degree of deference to the skilled judgment of immigration officials. In light of this, although it may be a close case, I would hold that the agents’ familiarity with the Havre community; their observation of a group of Hispanic-looking men at a football game who appeared to be a work-crew and were speaking only to each other, and only in Spanish; and the agents’ particularized knowledge that work crews in the area . . .