Ice Approach To Motion To Suppress

[Prepaced

by Kcw yqrk Cily ICE Attorneys March 2009]

Department)s Proposed Framework to Address l\llotions to Suppress Evidence r---------~--------------__.

Ylotioll is 1\1oot No Need to Analyze

• •

lv'rotion to Exclude

I) D:d Governr.lent Introduce Un re Iated,1 nde pen den t

Evidence under Either

Evidence (e.g. admission5, prior applications)?

, If Yes?

~~....---!

(

or

SLlI

Amenc!.mems

Determine if Government evidence establishes alienage and removability

If No, then move to Step 2

-------

E\'ide~~""\-I----,-----rIII. .

2) Docs tl,c meet fundamentn] fairness, due process ~

4th

•

....-----------.---I~~------.-

If!

1'\0 need ~o fUrL1er anaJyze under the 41h Ameadment

Ca:1't Admit

i ' o ? , Evider.cc

standards under the S!h

~----------~

~Arnendmenl'J

If ycs~ then move to Step 3

:.----

~

3) Did GovtTnJl}.cnt introduce Evidellct;

~

(~Ai1enuated from ,my alleged

)

If

Yes?

Amendment Violatio~ per Hudson/Harris?

41h

"'"

to.

!~

i

..

~

Move

Admit Evidence

01'... ~o

detennining

rcmovabHity

I

~

If No) then move to Step 4

/

(

4) Is the c" ide nee credi ble and waS it gathered in connection with a pcaceflll arrest? Iu other words, is the 4 111 Amendment violation comparable to

If yes, then not egregious, move on to detcrmi n ing cemovabi!i ty.

Lopez-Mendoza?

J L~

~-----------------------------~l

rfNo~ then n10ve to

Step 5

In all scenados if

...L.----------:-=~-----_==:__

removability is not established

5j Ifviola!ion not comparable to an nighttime enforcement action iJIVoh,jng dweflings ) would r.ot be) then presume DHS evidence is admi5~iolc and move fon.vard iJ) dcterminir.g removability, willi both panics preserving illly ;ttl-. Amendmcn~ issu:: for oou::nlial federal coUrl review,

-----~~--------~~----

then termination may be

\


\

'] 1

,.1

"'~