FLOC v. Ohio St. Highway Patrol: 6th Circuit Upholds Ruling against Ohio Trooper Who Seized Green Cards

IMMIGRATION LAW & POLICY

Arrest and Detention

FARM LABOR ORGANIZING COMMITTEE V. OHIO STATE HIGHWAY PATROL: 6TH CIRCUIT UPHOLDS RULING AGAINST OHIO TROOPER WHO SEIZED GREEN CARDS
Immigrants' Rights Update, Vol. 16, No. 7 November 22, 2002

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit has upheld a federal district court's ruling in favor of the plaintiffs in a lawsuit brought against the Ohio State Highway Patrol (OSHP). The ruling upholds the district court's finding that an OSHP trooper was not entitled to the defense of qualified immunity against the claim that he violated the equal protection rights of two plaintiffs in interrogating them about their immigration status after a traffic stop, because of their Hispanic appearance. The ruling also rejects the trooper's qualified immunity defense against a claim that he violated the plaintiffs' Fourth Amendment rights when he seized their permanent resident (or "green") cards and held them for four days. Finally, the ruling upholds the district court's grant of partial summary judgment to the two plaintiffs on the claim concerning the seized green cards.

The decision concerns only a part of the original litigation, which has a long history. The case was brought as a class action on behalf of migrant workers who claimed that the OSHP violated the Fourth Amendment and the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by stopping and interrogating them concerning their immigration status, based on their Hispanic appearance. In some cases, the plaintiffs alleged, the OSHP confiscated their immigration documents. In 1997 the federal district court issued a preliminary injunction prohibiting the OSHP from questioning motorists as to their immigration status "absent consent or reasonable suspicion based on articulable objective facts," and from seizing immigration documents "absent lawful cause for doing so." Farm Labor Org. Comm. v. Ohio State Highway Patrol, 991 F.Supp. 895, 907 (N.D. Ohio 1997). However, in 1998 the court dissolved the preliminary injunction and granted summary judgment on the Fourth Amendment claims to all defendants, except for defendant Trooper Kevin Kiefer. The court found that the Fourth Amendment did not prohibit the OSHP from questioning individuals regarding their immigration status, as long as the questioning occurred in the context of lawful traffic stops and did not make the stop longer than usual. The most recent decision concerns the claims against Kiefer.

In the 1998 decision, the court granted summary judgment against Kiefer on the claim that he violated the Fourth Amendment by unreasonably detaining the green cards of two plaintiffs, a Mr. Aguilar and a Ms. Esparza, in seizing the cards and holding them for four days after a traffic stop. However, the court also found that Kiefer's questioning of the plaintiffs regarding their immigration status did not violate the Fourth Amendment. It was uncontested that the traffic stop itself was justified because of a defective headlight. After pulling the plaintiffs over, Kiefer proceeded to question them regarding their immigration status, examining their green cards. He asked them whether they had "paid for them," and the plaintiffs, who have limited English-speaking ability and believed that the trooper was asking whether they had paid the required application fees, answered "yes." This occurred on a Sunday, and Kiefer took the cards back to his office to verify them with the Immigration and Naturalization Service. The plaintiffs, who had been stopped en route from Chicago to Toledo, Ohio, then retained an attorney to recover their cards. However, the attorney was not immediately able to find out what happened to the cards, because Kiefer took the next few days off from work. It was not until the next Thursday that Kiefer verified the cards as authentic and returned them to the plaintiffs.

In 2000 the district court granted partial reconsideration of the 1998 decision. The prior decision had not addressed the claims of the plaintiffs that the questioning about their immigration status violated equal protection. In the 2000 decision, the court concluded that the plaintiffs had presented sufficient evidence to make a prima facie case that the OSHP discriminated against them on the basis of their Hispanic ethnicity. It also ruled that the defendants had failed to rebut this showing. Accordingly, the court granted summary judgment to plaintiffs Aguilar and Esparza on this claim against Kiefer. The court also denied Kiefer's motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity against this claim, finding that he had failed to offer any legitimate race-neutral explanation for the investigation. Farm Labor Org. Comm., 95 F.Supp.2d 723 (N.D. Ohio 2000). Kiefer then filed an interlocutory appeal of these decisions with the Sixth Circuit.

Ruling on the appeal, the Sixth Circuit first discussed the limited nature of an interlocutory appeal of a denial of qualified immunity. For purposes of the appeal, the version of the facts presented by the plaintiffs must be assumed to be true. The court must determine "whether the facts, viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs, show a violation of the plaintiffs' constitutional rights."

The court found that for the plaintiffs to establish that Trooper Kiefer's questioning regarding their immigration status violated equal protection, they must show that they were treated unequally based upon their race or ethnicity, despite the fact that the traffic stop was otherwise lawful. The court noted that the Supreme Court "has explained that a claimant alleging selective enforcement of facially neutral criminal laws must demonstrate that the challenged law enforcement practice 'had a discriminatory effect and that it was motivated by a discriminatory purpose,'" citing Wayte v. United States, 470 U.S. 598, 608 (1985). Since the record did not show that the OSHP uses racial criteria or "admits to racially-motivated decision making," in order to establish a "discriminatory effect" the plaintiffs must show that similarly situated non-Hispanics were not questioned about their immigration status. As noted above, the district court had found that the plaintiffs had submitted sufficient evidence to make a prima facie case of intentional discrimination-that they were investigated because they are Hispanic. The appellate court found that, because of the limited nature of the review in an interlocutory appeal of a denial of qualified immunity, it could not review this determination. And, for purposes of the appeal, Trooper Kiefer did not dispute that he questioned the plaintiffs because they are Hispanic. Rather, he claimed that to establish a violation of clearly established law, plaintiffs would have to show that the sole motive for his conduct was their Hispanic appearance. Kiefer argued that he was also motivated by the plaintiffs' limited English-speaking ability, which he claims is a valid race-neutral basis for investigating their immigration status.

The court rejected these claims, finding that the plaintiffs need only show that the discriminatory motive played a determinative role. The court also found that while an inability to speak English may be a proper race-neutral factor, the fact that the plaintiffs spoke Spanish is not. In so ruling, the Sixth Circuit noted that the district court had found that the plaintiffs' evidence supported the inference that OSHP officers focus on motorists' limited English abilities largely as an "indicator [ ] of Hispanic ethnicity" [sic]. The court found that whether this is in fact the case is an issue properly left for trial.

The Sixth Circuit concluded that the district court had properly denied Kiefer's motion for summary judgment on the equal protection claim. As noted above, the court also upheld the denial of qualified immunity against the claim that the seizure of the green cards was unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment. Finally, the court upheld the grant of summary judgment to plaintiffs Aguilar and Esparza on this latter claim. The only reason offered by Kiefer for holding the green cards for four days was that he took a few days off from work. The unreasonableness of the seizure was, the court held, exacerbated by Kiefer's failure to inform the plaintiffs about how long the documents would be held or how they would be returned.

Farm Labor Organizing Committee v. Ohio State Highway Patrol, __ F.3d __, No. 00-3653 (6th Cir. Oct. 17, 2002).