Valdez v. United States
| Decision Date | 07 November 2014 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 1:12–CV–381. |
| Citation | 58 F.Supp.3d 795 |
| Parties | Luis VALDEZ and Telma Valdez, Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES of America, Michelle Rocha, Matthew Putra Aaron Lutton, Jason Andrews, Ronald Reynolds, and Jon Paul Demarse, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Michigan |
H. Rhett Pinsky, Pinsky Smith Fayette & Kennedy LLP, Miriam J. Aukerman, ACLU of Michigan, Grand Rapids, MI, Michael J. Steinberg, ACLU Fund of Michigan, Detroit, MI, Susan Elizabeth Reed, Farmworkers Legal Services, Kalamazoo, MI, for Plaintiffs.
Ryan D. Cobb, Carolyn Ann Almassian, Jeanne Frances Long, Timothy P. Verhey, U.S. Attorney, Grand Rapids, MI, for Defendants.
This is a civil rights and Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”) action arising out of a United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) raid in Grand Rapids, Michigan. This matter is before the Court on cross motions for partial summary judgment. The Court heard oral argument on the motions; they are fully briefed and ready for decision. For the reasons set forth below, the Court will grant Defendants' motion in part and deny it in part, and deny Plaintiffs' motion.
Many facts of the case are decidedly disputed. Defendants themselves offer divergent accounts of some basic facts. The parties nevertheless agree on the following.
The Office of Enforcement and Removal Operations is charged with implementing ICE's Fugitive Operations Program, which seeks to locate and apprehend “alien fugitives,” defined as persons with outstanding orders of removal from the United States. (Lutton Dep., Ex. 1, Docket # 125, Page ID 1038, 1040.) ICE operates the program through Fugitive Operations Teams. The individual defendants were part of Detroit-based Team “Charlie.” (Demarse Dep., Ex. 4, Docket # 125, Page ID 1163.)
Prior to conducting field enforcement actions, ICE officers compile a list of potential alien fugitive targets (Id. at 1040; see also Fugitive Operations Overview, Ex. 37, Docket # 170, Page ID 4787–89.) Officers gather leads for these targets from multiple sources, including local police departments and other federal agencies, such as Citizenship and Immigration Services and Customs and Border Protection. (Id. at 1039–40.) Officers then prepare a Field Operations Worksheet (“FOW”) for each target. (Putra Dep., Ex. 2, Docket # 215, Page ID 1086.) To prepare the FOW, officers research a potential target's immigration history using databases operated by federal agencies. (Lutton Dep., at 1041.) Officers may also obtain information from private databases, such as Accurint, which contains credit information, vehicle information, property ownership, and names of relatives and other known associates. (Id. ) Additionally, officers have access to Canadian immigration information, such as Canadian driver's license information, criminal history, and warrants. (Id. at 1049.)
Once completed, a FOW is placed in a target folder. Target folders may contain signed removal warrants (Form I–205), immigration history, recent photographs, and information about the target's associates. (See id. at 1056–57; Fugitive Operations Handbook, Ex. 38, Docket # 170, Page ID 4805.) Officers are trained to run reports on non-target associates that they may encounter in the field, including citizens and legal permanent residents. (Lutton Dep., at 1056–57.)
Absent exigent circumstances, an operational briefing precedes every enforcement action. (Fugitive Operations Handbook, Ex. 38, Docket # 170, Page ID 4809.) The briefing covers “information in the target folder, including the type of warrant being executed (administrative arrest, criminal search, or criminal arrest).” (Id. ) At briefings, officers pass around photographs, share target folders, and discuss descriptive information about the targets. (See, e.g., Rocha Dep., Ex. 5, Docket # 125, Page ID 1193.) The purpose of the briefing is to “know who you're looking for and be able to identify them.” (Putra Dep., at 1106.)
In February 2011, Team Charlie prepared to travel to Grand Rapids, Michigan. Prior to departure, immigration officers prepared FOWs and target folders for target alien fugitives. Agent Ronald Reynolds learned that Jose Calvo Cortave (sometimes referenced as “Principal Target”), an alien fugitive, had recently been arrested for driving with a suspended license. (Reynolds Dep., Ex. 3, Docket # 125, Page ID 1131; Police Report, Ex. 8, Docket # 126, Page ID 1270.) Agent Reynolds identified other alien fugitives associated with Principal Target Cortave's address, 43 Rose Street. (Reynolds Dep., at 1132.)
Irma Calvo Sanchez (sometimes referenced as “Associated Target Sanchez”)
Principal Target Cortave's Accurint report listed Irma Calvo Sanchez as a possible associate. (Id. ) An immigration judge had issued a warrant for Associated Target Sanchez's removal on December 11, 2001. (Id.; Warrant of Removal, Ex. 10, Docket # 126, Page ID 1280.) Associated Target Sanchez had registered her vehicle at 43 Rose Street in July 2008. (Reynolds Dep., at 1132.) Her driver's license had since expired. (Id. ) An immigration officer other than the defendants in this case drove by 43 Rose Street on September 22, 2010 but did not locate Associated Target Sanchez or her vehicle, and there were “no leads.” (Reynolds Dep., at 1133.) Using the information he compiled, Agent Reynolds created an FOW for Associated Target Sanchez. (Id.; see also FOW, Ex. 10, Docket # 126, Page ID 1278.) The FOW indicates that Associated Target Sanchez was 56 years old, 5 feet, 2 inches tall, 140 pounds, with brown eyes, black hair, and a medium complexion.
Norma Rodas Santos (sometimes referenced as “Associated Target Santos”)
Agent Reynolds's investigation also linked Norma Rodas Santos to 43 Rose Street. (Reynolds Dep., at 1136.) Agent Reynolds prepared a FOW indicating that Associated Target Santos was 46 years old, 5 feet, 3 inches tall, 145 pounds, with brown eyes, black hair, and a medium complexion. (FOW, Ex. 11, Docket # 126, Page ID 1285.) She was an immigration target associated with the Principal Target, Mr. Cortave.
Agent Reynolds also identified three associates of Associated Target Sanchez: Plaintiff Telma Valdez, Plaintiff Luis Valdez (Plaintiff Telma Valdez's son), and Oscar Ovidio Valdez Lopez (Plaintiff Telma Valdez's husband). (Reynolds Dep., at 1136.) On February 17, 2011, Agent Reynolds compiled information on Plaintiff Telma Valdez. He ran various reports containing her address (140 Griggs Street), vehicle information, driver's license information, and immigration status. (Id. at 1136–37.) There were no warrants for Plaintiff Telma Valdez's arrest. (See Ex. 31, Docket # 163.)
Agent Reynolds printed information about Plaintiff Telma Valdez and wrote “LPR” (for legal permanent resident) on it. (Id.; Ex. 31, Docket # 163, Page ID 3989.) Agent Reynolds testified during his deposition that he wrote “LPR” so he and his team would know that Plaintiff Telma Valdez was a legal permanent resident—not an alien fugitive—should they encounter her in the field. (See id. at 1136, 1153.) Under the letters “LPR,” Agent Reynolds also wrote a description of Plaintiff Telma Valdez's vehicle—a 1996 chevy—and her license plate number. (Id. at 1137; Telma Valdez File, Ex. 31, Docket # 163, Page ID 3989.) He also printed a full-page photo of Plaintiff Telma Valdez and included it in the file. (Reynolds Dep., at 1137.) Because Plaintiff Telma Valdez was not a target, he did not create a separate FOW. (See id. at 1136–37.) Plaintiff Telma Valdez was 43 years old, 5 feet, 2 inches, 130 pounds, with brown eyes, black hair, and a medium complexion. (See Telma Valdez Driver's License, Ex. 49, Docket # 142, Page ID 2718; Telma Valdez Dep., Ex. 2, Docket # 133, at 1536.)
43 Rose Street
Team Charlie arrived in Grand Rapids in the afternoon of February 23, 2011. (Demarse Dep., at 1168.) Its targets included Principal Target Cortave, and Associated Targets Sanchez and Santos.
First, the officers discussed their targets over the radio. (Reynolds Dep., at 1139.) Agent Reynolds testified that it is customary to pass photographs of targets around to all the officers before a raid. (Id. ) Agent Reynolds could not recall, however, if he shared photographs of the targets at 43 Rose Street with the other officers. (Id. ) Officer Lutton testified at his deposition that he had seen a photograph of Principal Target Cortave. (See Lutton Dep., at 1062.)
The officers exited their vehicles and approached the house. Either Agent Reynolds or Officer Lutton carried the target folders to the front door. (Id. at 1062; Reynolds Dep., at 1138–39.) The remaining four officers—Rocha, Andrews, Putra, and Demarse—secured the area around the house. (See, e.g., Rocha Dep., at 1195.) Officer Lutton knocked on the front door, observed Principal Target Cortave inside through a front window, and recognized him as a target from his photograph. (Lutton Dep., at 1062.) Officer Lutton saw Principal Target Cortave look at him through the window, pick up his telephone, and make a call. (Id. ) The parties agree that he spoke to Plaintiff Telma Valdez. He told her that the police were at his house but there is no indication that he knew or told Plaintiff Telma Valdez that the officers were immigration officials. (See Telma Valdez Dep., at 1513–14.) Shortly thereafter, Principal Target Cortave came to the door. (Id. ) Officer Lutton and Agent Reynolds identified themselves as “police,” not ICE agents. (Id.; Reynolds Dep., at 1142.) Recognizing Cortave as their “main target,” Agent Reynolds yelled “TANGO” over the radio to indicate to the others that he had identified a target. (Reynolds Dep., at 1142.) According to Officer Lutton, Principal Target Cortave consented to a search of the house. Shortly thereafter, one of the officers handcuffed Cortave. (Id. at 1143; Rocha Dep., at 1198.) Officer Rocha—the only officer...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Soto-Cintron v. United States
...would prevail on a particular immunity under state law , so too should the United States under the FTCA." See Valdez v. United States , 58 F.Supp.3d 795, 828 (W.D. Mich. 2014) (emphasis added) ("From a policy perspective, the answer would seem self-evident: if the point of the FTCA is to ma......
-
Dominique v. United States
...shields the United States from intentional torts that a governmental employee would have had immunity from under state law. See Valdez, 58 F. Supp. 3d at 829 (indicating that "[t]he United States is entitled to the same Michigan governmental immunity from intentional torts that [afederal ag......
-
Dunigan v. Thomas
...prohibits racial targeting in law enforcement investigations, regardless of whether an encounter was lawful under the Fourth Amendment.” Id. quotation marks omitted) (quoting Farm Labor Org. Comm. v. Ohio State Hwy. Patrol, 308 F.3d 523, 542 (6th Cir. 2002)). The Court finds, accepting Plai......
-
Sharpe v. City of Southfield
...conduct.'” Avery v. Neverson, No. 18-11752, 2020 WL 3440576, at *3 (E.D. Mich. Apr. 3, 2020)[8] (quoting Valdex v. United States, 58 F.Supp.3d 795, 831 (W.D. Mich. 2014)). And throughout the Eastern District of Michigan have interpreted Michigan law so that an officer's excessive force cann......