Second Circuit· 8/14/2014

Maldonado v. Holder

Citations

763 F.3d 155
2014 WL 3953651
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 15627

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

explaining that “unless a petitioner is first 4 1 required to submit an affidavit that could support a basis 2 for excluding the evidence, an evidentiary hearing would be 3 required in every deportation proceeding” (internal 4 quotation marks and citation omitted)
applying egregiousness standard because, even if ICE had not played a \substantial role\ in the arrests executed by local police officers, petitioners \fail[ed] to identify any authority applying the exclusionary rule in removal proceedings absent an egregious constitutional violation\
describing case where local police department with no supplemental authority under § 1357(g)(1)\jointly conduct[ed] a sting operation\ with ICE and, although the local officers actually arrested Petitioners, \ICE agents were on the scene\ and \took part in their arrests\
“The affidavits in this case do not suggest egregious constitutional violations, and therefore could not support a basis for excluding the evidence.” (brackets, citation, and internal quotation marks omitted)
“Petitioners were required to proffer affidavits based on personal knowledge that, taken as true, could support suppression. Had their affidavits been sufficient, they would have had an opportunity to confirm those allegations in an evidentiary hearing.”
“Something egregious is by nature extreme, rare, and obvious.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Jacobs, Kearse, Lynch

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

15 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

27 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases named Maldonado v. Holder

5 other CourtListener records share this case name.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.