Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Michigan Immigrant Rights Center v. United States Department of Homeland Security

United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division

June 8, 2017

MICHIGAN IMMIGRANT RIGHTS CENTER, et al., Plaintiffs,
v.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY and UNITED STATES CUSTOMS AND B PROTECTION, Defendants.

OPINION AND ORDER

          JOHN CORBETT O'MEARA UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         Before the court is Plaintiffs' motion to deem certain allegations in the complaint admitted or, in the alternative, to take a limited Rule 30(b)(6) deposition. Relying on the parties' full briefing of this matter, the court did not hear oral argument.

         BACKGROUND FACTS

         Plaintiffs - the Michigan Immigrant Rights Center, Dr. Geoffrey Alan Boyce, Dr. Elizabeth Oglesby, and the American Civil Liberties Union of Michigan - filed this action against the U.S. Departments of Homeland Security and Customs and Border Protection. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants have failed to properly respond to their Freedom of Information Act request, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 522.

         In general, Plaintiffs seek records related to the Border Patrol's policies, practices, and procedures regarding apprehensions, detentions, enforcement actions, and complaints. See Compl. at Ex. A (Plaintiffs' FOIA Request). Plaintiffs contend that the Border Patrol treats the entire state of Michigan as a border zone, where persons and vehicles are subject to warrantless searches. See 8 U.S.C. § 1357(a)(3) (authorizing Border Patrol agents to conduct warrantless searches of vehicles “within a reasonable distance from any external boundary of the United States . . . for the purpose of patrolling the border to prevent the illegal entry” of non-citizens); 8 C.F.R. § 287.1(b) (“reasonable distance” from border not more than 100 air miles from international boundary).

         Pertinent to this motion, Plaintiffs make the following allegations in their complaint:

3. The relevant regulations provide that CBP can determine what a “reasonable distance” is based on local factors, but that the distance shall not be more than 100 air miles from the international boundary. 8 C.F.R. § 287.1(b). That maximum distance is called the “100 mile zone.”
4. In Michigan, CBP has not only set the “reasonable distance” for the entire state at the maximum 100 miles, but also considers the entire state to be within 100 miles of an international boundary, and hence within the “100 mile zone.”
5. Under this interpretation, CBP agents patrolling the “border” could potentially subject anyone in Michigan - regardless of where he or she is within the state - to warrantless detention and search.
* * *
30. A map prepared by CBP and obtained by Plaintiffs shows that CBP uses 100 miles as the “reasonable distance” everywhere in the state. The map also shows that CBP considers the entire state of Michigan to be within the 100-mile zone. That map is reproduced below.
* * *
32. Based on the map, it appears CBP believes that no warrant is needed for Border Patrol agents to detain and search ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.