Farm Labor Organizing Committee v. Ohio State Highway Patrol

308 F.3d 523 (6th Cir. 2002)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

Ps are lawfully admitted, permanent resident aliens. Ps were driving from their home to visit family members. An Ohio State Highway Patrol (OSHP) trooper, D, stopped Ps for driving with a faulty headlight. After Ps pulled over, D approached and asked to see Aguilar's (P) driver's license. Aguilar (P) provided D with a valid Illinois driver's license. D then ordered Aguilar out of the car and placed him in the back of his cruiser. A second OSHP cruiser arrived. A trooper from the second cruiser walked a drug-sniffing dog around the outside of Ps' vehicle. The dog 'alerted,' indicating that the vehicle contained narcotics. The second trooper then asked Esparza (P) for identification. She offered the trooper an Illinois identification card, but the trooper reportedly grabbed her wallet and removed her green card. She was locked in the back of D's cruiser next to Aguilar. D then demanded to see Aguilar's (P) green card. The green cards of both Ps were valid and in force at the time of this encounter. The troopers asked Ps where they had obtained their green cards and whether they had paid for them. Green cards are not offered for sale. Ps speak limited English and believed that the troopers were asking whether they had paid the required processing fees. They responded that they had paid for the cards, meaning that they had paid all required fees. D interpreted the response as an indication that the cards were likely forged and retained the green cards for authentication. It was Sunday so INS was unavailable to verify the authenticity of the cards. D let Ps go. D 'did not issue a receipt for their green cards, tell them when they could expect them back if the cards were indeed authentic, or tell them where or how to inquire if they had any questions about the seizure. Ps retained an attorney. A paralegal contacted the OSHP but was unable to obtain assistance because he lacked information regarding the incident. On Thursday, the paralegal contacted OSHP and spoke to D. D returned the green cards personally that same day, four days after the initial seizure. D explained that the delay was because he had taken a few days off from work and was unable to reach the INS during that time. OSHP troopers have been known to inquire into motorists' immigration status during routine traffic stops. When these inquiries lead an OSHP trooper to conclude that an individual may be an illegal immigrant, the trooper will contact the Border Patrol and detain the suspect until the Border Patrol arrives. OSHP has detained hundreds of motorists who were suspected to be illegally in the United States following routine traffic stops. This case was brought as a class action lawsuit. Ps claim the stops were motivated in a major part because of their Hispanic appearance and they could not speak English very well. The district court granted in part the class's request for a preliminary injunction, ordering the OSHP to (1) refrain from questioning motorists about their immigration status absent consent or reasonable suspicion based upon articulable objective facts, (2) refrain from seizing immigration documents without 'lawful cause for doing so,' and (3) provide effective substitutes for any immigration documents seized. The district court certified the class under 23(b)(2). The court granted Ps motion Aguilar for summary judgment against D based upon the claim that D had unreasonably detained their green cards for four days. The court found that the questioning took place after the police had probable cause to perform a search for narcotics, based on the alert of the drug detection dog. The court found that the class lacked standing for class-wide injunctive relief because the named plaintiffs had been stopped only once and the court did not find a sufficient likelihood that they would be subjected to similar practices again in the future. It held that Ps did have standing to sue for damages on an equal protection theory. D's motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity was denied. It granted Ps' motions for summary judgment against D on their equal protection claims. The district court granted summary judgment to all Ds in connection with the class's Title VI claims, because the class failed to demonstrate a sufficient nexus between federal funds provided to the OSHP and the challenged activity. D appealed