PUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 20-4159 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. MARCIO SANTOS-PORTILLO, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. Malcolm J. Howard, Senior District Judge. (7:18-cr-00010-H-1) Argued: March 10, 2021 Decided: May 7, 2021 Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by published opinion. Judge Wilkinson wrote the opinion, in which Judge Agee joined. Judge Floyd wrote a dissenting opinion. ARGUED: James Edward Todd, Jr., OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Greenville, North Carolina, for Appellant. Thomas Ernest Booth, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Appellee. ON BRIEF: G. Alan DuBois, Federal Public Defender, Eric Brignac, Chief Appellate Attorney, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. Brian C. Rabbitt, Acting Assistant Attorney General, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C.; Robert J. Higdon, Jr., United States Attorney, Jennifer May-Parker, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. WILKINSON, Circuit Judge: Appellant Santos-Portillo unlawfully entered the United States after a prior deportation resulting from a felony conviction. Federal officials arrested him with probable cause but without securing the administrative arrest warrant required by 8 U.S.C. § 1357(a). That arrest produced the evidence that led to Santos-Portillo’s present conviction for illegal reentry into the United States under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). On appeal, Santos-Portillo argues that we should suppress all post-arrest evidence against him. But § 1357(a) does not authorize courts to suppress evidence for violations of the provision. Santos-Portillo argues, however, that the federal courts have a broad supervisory power to suppress evidence for statutory violations by law enforcement regardless of whether Congress authorized suppression. But a proper respect for Congress’s role in determining the consequences of statutory violations compels rejecting his argument. Even assuming we have the authority to create a suppression remedy where Congress has not provided one, we decline to exercise it in this case. We therefore affirm the judgment. I. In January 2018, Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Special Agent Thomas Swivel saw someone whom he thought he recognized from a prior case. This turned out to be Santos-Portillo. As Santos-Portillo drove away, Agent Swivel wrote down his license plate number. Based on a subsequent records check, Agent Swivel learned that Santos-Portillo was a Honduran national who was in the United States illegally. He discovered a Texas felony 2 conviction for unlawfully fleeing from law enforcement and that Santos-Portillo had consequently been deported in 2011. Agent Swivel also found a photograph of Santos- Portillo in his immigration file. Agent Swivel drove to the address to which the car was registered. He saw the car but no people. Concluding that Santos-Portillo was in the United States illegally, Agent Swivel began coordinating with other agents to make an arrest. A few days later, Agent Swivel and four other agents staked out Santos-Portillo’s house. When Santos-Portillo exited the house, the agents confronted him. Santos-Portillo …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals