NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ____________ No. 20-1175 ____________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. LEOVIJILDO MITRA-HERNANDEZ, Appellant ____________ On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania (D.C. No. 1-19-cr-00067-001) District Judge: Honorable Malachy E. Mannion ____________ Argued on October 14, 2021 Before: SHWARTZ, NYGAARD and FISHER, Circuit Judges. (Filed: January 24, 2022) Ronald A. Krauss Quin M. Sorenson Jason F. Ullman [ARGUED] Office of Federal Public Defender 100 Chestnut Street, Suite 306 Harrisburg, PA 17101 Counsel for Appellant Stephen R. Cerutti, II [ARGUED] Bruce D. Brandler, Acting United States Attorney Office of United States Attorney Middle District of Pennsylvania 228 Walnut Street, P.O. Box 11754 220 Federal Building and Courthouse Harrisburg, PA 17108 Counsel for Appellee ____________ OPINION* ____________ FISHER, Circuit Judge. Leovijildo Mitra-Hernandez was arrested by Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers in Hanover, Pennsylvania and charged with illegal reentry into the United States in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. But when the officers stopped him, they were looking for someone else they suspected of being in the country illegally—an individual named “Juan Ramiro.” Mitra-Hernandez filed a motion to suppress evidence obtained during the stop, which the District Court denied. Mitra-Hernandez then pled guilty, reserving his right to appeal the denial of the suppression motion. Accordingly, he now appeals. We will affirm.1 Under the Fourth Amendment, “[w]hen a police officer has ‘a reasonable, articulable suspicion that criminal activity is afoot,’ he or she may conduct a ‘brief, investigatory stop.’”2 Reasonable suspicion is not a difficult standard to meet, requiring * This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent. 1 The District Court had jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 3231 (offenses against the laws of the United States). This Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (final judgments). 2 United States v. Whitfield, 634 F.3d 741, 744 (3d Cir. 2010) (quoting Illinois v. Wardlow, 528 U.S. 119, 123 (2000)). 2 just “a minimal level of objective justification.”3 “Evidence obtained through unreasonable searches and seizures must,” generally speaking, “be suppressed as ‘fruit of the poisonous tree.’”4 An exception to this suppression rule provides that “evidence . . . regarding [a criminal defendant’s] true identity and his prior deportation is . . . not subject to suppression.”5 There is an exception to the exception, however: when officers have committed “egregious violations of Fourth Amendment or other liberties that might transgress notions of fundamental fairness and undermine the probative value of the evidence obtained,” even the defendant’s identity and immigration file may be suppressed.6 Mitra-Hernandez argues that (1) his Mexican identification card and his statements to the ICE officers during the stop should be suppressed because there was no reasonable suspicion for the stop, and (2) his identity and immigration file should be suppressed because the Fourth Amendment violation was egregious. We will assume that Mitra- Hernandez is correct on his first argument, but we disagree on his …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals