Galarza v. Szalczyk

Decision Date04 March 2014
Docket NumberNo. 12–3991.,12–3991.
Citation745 F.3d 634
PartiesErnesto GALARZA, Appellant v. Mark SZALCZYK; City of Allentown; Lehigh County; Greg Marino; Christie Correa.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Mary Catherine Roper, Esq., Molly M. Tack–Hooper, Esq., American Civil Liberty Union Foundation of Pennsylvania, Jonathon H. Feinberg, Esq., Kairy, Rudovsky, Messing & Feinberg LLP, Seith Kreimer, Esq., Philadelphia, PA, Omar C. Jadwat, Esq., Esha Bhandari, Esq., American Civil Liberties Union Foundation, Immigrants' Rights Project, New York, NY, Cecilia Wang, Esq., Katherine Desormeau, Esq., [argued], American Civil Liberties Union Foundation, Immigrants' Rights Project, San Francisco, CA, Attorneys for Appellant Ernesto Galarza.

Thomas M. Caffrey, Esq., [argued], Allentown, PA, Attorney for Appellee Lehigh County.

Christopher N. Lasch, Esq., University of Denver Sturm College of Law, Denver, CO, Rebecca A. Sharpless, Esq., University of Miami School of Law, Coral Gables, FL, Attorneys for Amicus Appellant Law Professors and Scholars who Teach, Research, and Practice in the Area of Immigration and Nationality Law and Criminal Law.

Andrew C. Nichols, Esq., Winston & Strawn, Washington, DC, Attorney for Amicus Appellants National Immigration Project of the National Lawyers Guild and National Immigrant Justice Center.

Before: FUENTES, COWEN, and BARRY, Circuit Judges.

OPINION OF THE COURT

FUENTES, Circuit Judge.

Ernesto Galarza is a U.S. citizen who was arrested for a drug offense, posted bail, and instead of being released, was held in custody by Lehigh County under an immigration detainer issued by federal immigration officials. Three days after Galarza posted bail, immigration officials learned that he was a U.S. citizen. The detainer was withdrawn and Galarza was released. Galarza then filed this § 1983 action against, in relevant part, Lehigh County, contending that Lehigh County detained Galarza without probable cause for more than 48 hours, without notice of the basis of his detention or the ability to contest it. The District Court dismissed the complaint against Lehigh County on the basis that it could not be held responsible for Galarza's detention because it was compelled to follow the immigration detainer. On appeal, Galarza argues that under a plain reading of the relevant federal regulation, immigration detainers are permissive and, to hold otherwise, would violate the anti-commandeering principles inherent in the Tenth Amendment. We agree with Galarza that immigration detainers do not and cannot compel a state or local law enforcement agency to detain suspected aliens subject to removal. Accordingly, we vacate and remand for further proceedings.

I. BACKGROUND1

This case arises out of Ernesto Galarza's detention by the Allentown Police Department and the Lehigh County Prison in November 2008. Galarza is a U.S. Citizen, born in Perth Amboy, New Jersey. He is a Hispanic man of Puerto Rican heritage. On November 20, 2008, Galarza was performing construction work on a house in Allentown, Pennsylvania. Sometime that day, the contractor on the construction site sold cocaine to an undercover Allentown Police detective, Christie Correa. Detective Correa arrested the contractor, along with Galarza and two other employees who were working at the site. All were charged with conspiracy to deliver cocaine in violation of Pennsylvania law. Two of the other workers arrested were citizens of the Dominican Republic, and the third was a citizen of Honduras. At the time of Galarza's arrest, he had a wallet, which contained his Pennsylvania driver's license, his Social Security Card, a debit card, and his health insurance card. After his arrest, Galarza was detained by the Allentown Police Department. The Criminal Complaint prepared by Correa at the time of Galarza's arrest listed Galarza's place of birth as Perth Amboy, N.J. and contained Galarza's Social Security Number and date of birth. In accordance with Allentown's policy to contact Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) 2 whenever persons arrested are suspected of being “aliens subject to deportation,” Correa called ICE and provided immigration officials with Galarza's name, date and place of birth, ethnicity, and Social Security number. Galarza contends that, by making this call, Correa gave ICE reason to believe that she suspected Galarza had given false information about his identity.

That evening, Galarza was transported to Lehigh County Prison and his bail was set at $15,000. The following morning, Friday, November 21, Galarza went through the booking process, and during this process, he told prison officials that he was born in New Jersey. The officials took his wallet, containing his driver's license, Social Security Card, debit card, and health insurance card.

At some point that day, ICE Agent Mark Szalczyk, acting on the information relayed by Correa, filed an immigration detainer with Lehigh County Prison. The detainer described Galarza as a suspected “alien” and citizen of the Dominican Republic. The detainer read:

Investigation has been initiated to determine whether this person is subject to removal/deportation from the United States.... It is requested that you: Please accept this notice as a detainer. This is for notification purposes only.... Federal regulations (8 CFR 287.7) require that you detain the alien for a period not to exceed 48 hours (excluding Saturdays, Sundays and Federal holidays) to provide adequate time for ICE to assume custody of the alien. You may notify ICE by calling (610) 374–0743 during business hours or 802 872–6020 after hours in an emergency.

App. at 105. The detainer was accompanied by neither a warrant, an affidavit of probable cause, nor a removal order. That same day, a surety company posted bail for Galarza, and a Lehigh County Prison official told Galarza that he would be released. Shortly thereafter, the same official informed Galarza that he would not be released because he was the subject of a detainer.

When Galarza protested that there should be no detainer preventing his release, the official told Galarza that he would have to wait through the weekend until Monday, November 24 to speak with a counselor. Galarza had not been interviewed by ICE or provided with a copy of the detainer. It was not until that Monday, three days after his arrest, that a Lehigh County Prison counselor told Galarza for the first time that the detainer holding him was an immigration detainer filed by ICE. Galarza immediately protested that he was a U.S. Citizen, and he urged the counselor to retrieve his wallet from the property room in order to look at Galarza's driver's license and Social Security Card, but the counselor refused. Shortly thereafter, Galarza met with two ICE officers, who questioned him extensively about his statement that he was born in New Jersey. Galarza gave the immigration officials his Social Security Number and date of birth. The officials left and returned to inform Galarza that the detainer was being lifted. The detainer was in fact removed at 2:05 pm on Monday, November 24. Lehigh County did not release him until more than six hours later, at about 8:30 pm. Galarza was eventually acquitted by a jury of the charge stemming from his November 20, 2008 arrest.

Galarza filed two complaints: the first against Lehigh County, the City of Allentown, and various individual federal and municipal defendants for violations of his constitutional rights, and the second against the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”), 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b). These cases were consolidated. All defendants in the consolidated case, except the United States, moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6). Galarza v. Szalczyk, 2012 WL 1080020, at *1 (E.D.Pa. Mar. 30, 2012). The District Court held that the claims against ICE Agent Szalczyk and Allentown Detective Correa, for violations of the Fourth Amendment and the Equal Protection Clause, could go forward and that these officials were not entitled to qualified immunity. Id. at *2. The District Court dismissed a procedural due process claim against ICE Agent Szalczyk on qualified immunity grounds and dismissed all claims against another ICE official, the City of Allentown, and Lehigh County. Id.

In relevant part, the District Court determined that Galarza's continued detention after he posted bail constituted a seizure within the Fourth Amendment and that the seizure was unsupported by probable cause. Id. at *9–14. Specifically, the District Court found that Galarza had stated a Fourth Amendment claim against Correa and Szalczyk because these officers lacked probable cause to issue an immigration detainer. The District Court reasoned: [t]he fact that Mr. Galarza is Hispanic and was working at a construction site with three other Hispanic men—two of whom are citizens of foreign countries and another who claimed to have been born in Puerto Rico but is a citizen of the Dominican Republic—does not amount to probable cause to believe that Mr. Galarza is an alien not lawfully present in the United States.” Id. at *14. It also denied these officers' motions to dismiss these claims on grounds of qualified immunity. Id. at *14–15.

However, the District Court dismissed the Fourth Amendment and procedural due process claims against Lehigh County on the ground that “neither of the policies identified in plaintiff's Amended Complaint is unconstitutional [because] both are consistent with federal statutes and regulations.” Id. at *18. In doing so, the District Court relied on 8 C.F.R. § 287.7, concluding that detainers issued pursuant to this regulation impose mandatory obligations on state or local law enforcement agencies (“LEAs”), including municipalities, to follow such a detainer once it is received. Id. at *19. The District Court also dismissed Galarza's procedural due process claim on the ground that Lehigh County complied with the federal...

To continue reading

Request your trial
75 cases
  • City of Huntington Beach v. Becerra
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • January 10, 2020
    ......Chadbourne (1st Cir. 2015) 793 F.3d 208 ; Miranda-Olivares v. Clackamas County (D. Or. 2014) 2014 WL 1414305 ; Galarza v. Szalczyk (3d Cir. 2014) 745 F.3d 634. "(f) This chapter seeks to ensure effective policing, to protect the safety, well-being, and constitutional ......
  • Hernandez v. United States
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (2nd Circuit)
    • September 17, 2019
    ......Both the district court and the First Circuit permitted the plaintiff to proceed with her claims. Id. at 211, 223 ; see also Galarza v. Szalczyk , 745 F.3d 634, 636 (3d Cir. 2014) (involving a U.S. citizen arrested on unrelated state criminal charges but held after posting bail ......
  • Cnty. of Ocean v. Grewal, Civil Action No. 19-18083 (FLW)
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of New Jersey
    • July 29, 2020
    ...... Galarza v. Szalczyk , 745 F.3d 634, 643 (3d Cir. 2014). This doctrine serves several key purposes, including promoting "[a] healthy balance of power between ......
  • City of Gary v. Nicholson
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • December 10, 2021
    ...... Galarza v. Szalczyk , 745 F.3d 634, 640 (3rd Cir. 2014). Indeed, such a mandate would violate the Tenth Amendment. See El Cenizo , 890 F.3d at 180-81. ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
4 books & journal articles
  • An Innovative Approach to Movement Lawyering: an Immigrant Rights Case Study
    • United States
    • Georgetown Immigration Law Journal No. 35-2, January 2021
    • January 1, 2021
    ...off‌i-cials for unlawful detention on an immigration detainer issued without probable cause), rev’ d and remanded on other grounds, 745 F.3d 634 (reversing district court’s f‌inding of no municipal liability); Uroza v. Salt Lake City, No. 2: 11 CV713DAK, 2013 WL 653968, at *6–7 (D. Utah Feb......
  • Ice Detention Through U.s. Marshals Agreements
    • United States
    • Georgetown Immigration Law Journal No. 35-1, October 2020
    • October 1, 2020
    ...U.S. MARSHALS SERV., https:// www.usmarshals.gov/foia/IGAs_Cap_Agreements/indiana/lake_county_jail.pdf. 188. See Galarza v. Szalcyck, 745 F.3d 634,643 (3d Cir. 2014) (holding that detainers are requests only and that mandatory detainers would be “inconsistent with the anti-commandeering pri......
  • ANTI-SANCTUARY CITY LAWS: WHY THEY SHOULD NEVER BE PASSED IN LOUISIANA.
    • United States
    • Loyola Journal of Public Interest Law Vol. 20 No. 1, September 2018
    • September 22, 2018
    ...- page 721 (49) Lunn v. Commonwealth, 477 Mass. 517, 518 (2017); see also Galarza v. Szalczyk, 745 F.3d 634 (3d Cir. (50) Id. (51) U.S. Const, amend. X "prohibits the Federal government from compelling States to employ their resources to administer and enforce Federal programs. In other wor......
  • Immigrant Survivor Housing Issues
    • United States
    • Kansas Bar Association KBA Bar Journal No. 87-8, September 2018
    • Invalid date
    ...(last visited Jan 5, 2018). [16] Galarza v. Szalczyk, 745 F. 3d 634 [17] U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Immigration Status and Housing Discrimination Frequently Asked Questions Immigration Status and Housing Discrimination Frequently Asked Questions. [18] Id. [19] Id. [20......
1 provisions
  • Chapter 495, SB 54 – Law enforcement: sharing data
    • United States
    • California Session Laws
    • January 1, 2017
    ...(1st Cir. 2015) 793 F.3d 208; Miranda-Olivares v. Clackamas County (D. Or. 2014) 2014 WL 1414305; Galarza v. Szalczyk (3d Cir. 2014) 745 F.3d 634. (f) This chapter seeks to ensure effective policing, to protect the safety, well-being, and constitutional rights of the people of California, a......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT