01-2935 Martinez-Camargo v. INS

Listen to this article

“In this case, there can be no question that Officer’s Suchy’s actions did not impact Martinez-Camargo’s substantive rights. Martinez-Camargo’s primary complaint – indeed, his only complaint – is that Officer Suchy both arrested and examined him.

Martinez-Camargo must therefore demonstrate that had another officer interviewed him (the ‘right’ to which he was entitled under sec. 287.3), the INS would not have discovered his alienage or immigration status. The facts in this case belie such a conclusion.

Martinez-Camargo did not admit his immigration status to Officer Suchy during the interview process, but rather when Officer Suchy initially arrested him. Thus, Officer Suchy’s examination, during which he memorialized Martinez- Camargo’s prior statements on INS Form I- 213, did not generate any additional information. There was no coercion, and no allegation that Martinez-Camargo’s statements were involuntarily given. In short, the record fully supports the BIA’s holding regarding the absence of prejudice, and we find no error in the BIA’s reasoning or conclusion.

“Here, Summit Police Officers detained Martinez-Camargo pursuant to a routine criminal disturbance call.

Martinez-Camargo does not challenge this initial seizure, but rather Officer Suchy’s later questions regarding his alienage. Questions, however, are neither searches nor seizures, United States v. Childs, 277 F.3d 947, 949 (7th Cir. 2002), so while Officer Suchy’s questions may be considered in assessing the reasonableness of Martinez-Camargo’s detainment, they did not constitute a seizure independent and distinct from the original investigatory stop. With these principles in mind, we find that Officer Suchy’s questions were not unreasonable given their limited breadth and scope. Officer Suchy questioned Martinez-Camargo only after Summit police officers requested his assistance in translation. When Officer Suchy became involved, he asked Martinez-Camargo routine biographical questions, such as his name, birth date and place of birth. Such interrogation-if it can even be called that-is not unreasonable, and it certainly does not rise to the level of an egregious violation of the Fourth Amendment. Accordingly, the BIA properly rejected this argument.”

Affirmed.

Appeal from the Board of Immigration Appeals, Flaum, J.