Summary: Defendant argued that his Fourth Amendment rights were violated when officers approached him at the bus station and asked him questions. The United States Supreme Court has ruled that there is no seizure when law enforcement merely approaches people and asks them questions.

Case Name: USA v. Carlos Rivera-Erazo 

Case Number: C2-04-08

Docket Number: 25

Date Filed: 3/19/04 

Nature of Suit: 000

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NORTH DAKOTA

NORTHEASTERN DIVISION
 

            Before the Court is Defendant’s Motion to Suppress (doc. #19). The United States filed a brief in opposition (doc. #22). Defendant did not request a hearing on this motion, and his brief does not controvert any of the facts in Border Patrol Agent Wesley Coleman’s affidavit. Therefore, the Court will rely on Agent Coleman’s affidavit to decide this motion.

SUMMARY OF DECISION

            Merely asking Erazo whether he was an American citizen while he was waiting at the bus station did not amount to a Fourth Amendment seizure. As an alleged permanent resident alien, when Erazo failed to provide his immigration documents, he gave law enforcement probable cause to arrest him. Based on Agent Coleman’s affidavit, the Court finds that Erazo affirmatively and voluntarily waived his rights.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

            On January 8, 2004, Border Patrol Agents Spiegel and Campbell performed an immigration inspection at the Greyhound Bus Station in Grand Forks. Among those individuals the agents questioned was the defendant, Erazo. Erazo stated that he was a citizen of El Salvador, but he was lawfully admitted for permanent residence in the United States.

            The agents asked him for his immigration documents, and Erazo started searching for them. The agents also questioned the adult female and the juveniles accompanying Erazo. The adult female told the agents that she was a citizen of Costa Rica and neither she nor her children had valid immigration documents. When Erazo was unable to produce his immigration documents, the agents took him to the Border Patrol Station in Grand Forks.

            At the station, Erazo was read his Miranda rights in Spanish, and Erazo then stated that he understood his rights and waived his right to counsel. Erazo agreed to answer questions. During the subsequent conversation, Erazo admitted to smuggling aliens into the country.

ANALYSIS

            The Fourth Amendment is not implicated when law enforcement officers merely approach individuals and ask them questions, as long as the individuals are willing to listen. United States v. Drayton, 536 U.S. 194, 200 (2002). Even without reasonable suspicion, as long as the law enforcement officers do not induce cooperation by coercive means, they may ask an individual questions and ask that person for identification. Id. at 201. “If a reasonable person would feel free to terminate the encounter, then he or she has not been seized.” Id. When there is no evidence that the individual would be detained for refusing to answer a law enforcement officer’s questions, then he or she has not been seized. United States v. Angulo-Guerrero, 328 F.3d 449, 451 (8th Cir. 2003).

            The Supreme Court has found that there is no seizure when law enforcement officers enter a bus and position one officer at the entrance to the bus while other officers walk through the bus questioning passengers. See generally Drayton, 536 U.S. 194. In this case, Erazo was not even in the confines of a bus. The agents did not use any application of force or make any intimidating movements. They did not brandish weapons, block exits, or make any threats to Erazo. Merely asking Erazo whether he was an American citizen does not turn this encounter into a detention or seizure. Angulo-Guerrero, 328 F.3d at 451. The officers did not need reasonable suspicion before speaking with Erazo. Drayton, 536 U.S. at 201. This encounter did not violate the Fourth Amendment. Id.

            Immigrants who are not in possession of proper documentation are inadmissible. 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(7)(A). When Erazo was unable to produce documentation of his alleged permanent resident alien status, he provided the agents with probable cause to detain him. Transporting Erazo to the Border Patrol Station was not a violation of the Fourth Amendment.

            A written or oral waiver of the right to remain silent or of the right to counsel is usually strong proof of the validity of that waiver, but a court may also infer that the defendant has waived his rights from the actions and words of the person interrogated. North Carolina v. Butler, 441 U.S. 369, 373 (1979). A court may infer a valid waiver when the defendant responds to questions posed by law enforcement officers after being advised of his rights. United States v. House, 939 F.2d 662 (8th Cir. 1991) (citing Butler, 441 U.S. at 373). In this case, the Court finds that Erazo affirmatively waived his rights. The Court could also infer that Erazo had waived his rights because he spoke with agents after being informed of his rights. Id. (citing Butler, 441 U.S. at 373). The Court finds no Fifth or Sixth Amendment violations.

DECISION

            Based on the foregoing, Defendant’s Motion to Suppress is DENIED.

            IT IS SO ORDERED.

            Dated this 19th day of March, 2004.

                                                            __________________________
                                                            Ralph R. Erickson, District Judge

                                                            United States District Court