Plaintiffs' Joint Opening Brief on Appeal
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
October 24, 2019 03:26 PM IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON BRIAN STOVALL, JOHN OLMSTEAD, CONNIE KRUMMRICH, and KAREN BROWN, Plaintiffs-Appellants Cross-Respondents, v. NORTHERN OREGON CORRECTIONS, dba NORCOR, an intergovernmental corrections entity, Defendant-Respondent Cross-Appellant, and WASCO COUNTY, Defendant-Respondent. Wasco County Circuit Court 17CV31082 A170661 On appeal from Wasco County Circuit Court Judgment entered April 22, 2019 The Honorable John A. Wolf PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS’ CORRECTED JOINT OPENING BRIEF AND EXCERPT OF RECORD Nadia H. Dahab, OSB No. 125630 Stephen S. Walters, OSB No. 801200 Stoll Stoll Berne Lokting & Shlachter David R. Henretty, OSB No. 031870 P.C. Oregon Law Center 209 SW Oak Street, Suite 500 522 SW 5th Avenue, Suite 812 Portland, OR 97204 Portland OR 97204 (503) 227-1600 (503) 473-8684 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Attorneys for Plaintiffs- Appellants/Cross-Respondents Brian Attorneys for Plaintiff- Stovall, John Olmstead, and Connie Appellant/Cross-Respondent Karen Krummrich Brown October 2019 Stephen W. Manning, OSB No. 013373 Drew L. Eyman, OSB No. 163762 Immigrant Law Group LLP Sussman Shank LLP 333 SW 5th Avenue, Suite 525 1000 SW Broadway, Suite 1400 PO Box 40103 Portland, OR 97205 Portland, OR 97240 (503) 227-1111 (503) 241-0035 [email protected] [email protected] Attorneys for Defendant- Attorneys for Plaintiffs- Respondent/Cross-Appellant Appellants/Cross-Respondents Brian Northern Oregon Corrections Stovall, John Olmstead, and Connie Krummrich Bradley V. Timmons, OSB No. 903941 Timmons Law PC PO Box 2350 The Dalles, OR 97058 (541) 296-9900 [email protected] Attorneys for Defendant-Respondent Wasco County i TABLE OF CONTENTS STATEMENT OF THE CASE ............................................................................ 1 I. Nature of the Action ................................................................................... 2 II. Nature of the Judgment .............................................................................. 2 III. Basis for Appellate Jurisdiction ................................................................. 3 IV. Timeliness of Appeal .................................................................................. 3 QUESTIONS PRESENTED ................................................................................ 3 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ............................................................................ 3 STATEMENT OF FACTS ................................................................................... 5 I. NORCOR’s Incarceration of Immigrants Pursuant to the IGSA ............... 6 II. NORCOR’s Use of Public Resources Under the IGSA ............................. 7 III. NORCOR’s Booking and Release Notifications ....................................... 9 IV. Procedural History of this Lawsuit ........................................................... 10 FIRST ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR .................................................................. 12 The trial court erred in granting NORCOR’s motion for summary judgment on the ground that NORCOR’s incarceration of immigrants pursuant to the IGSA is not “for the purpose of apprehending” those persons in violation of ORS 181A.820. ............................................................................................................ 12 I. Preservation of Error ................................................................................ 12 II. Standard of Review .................................................................................. 13 SECOND ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR ............................................................. 13 The trial court erred in granting NORCOR’s cross-motion for summary judgment on the ground that NORCOR’s practice of notifying ICE upon booking a person of foreign birth on state or local charges is not a use of public resources “for the purpose of detecting” those persons in violation of ORS 181A.820. ............................................................................................................ 13 I. Preservation of Error ................................................................................ 14 ii II. Standard of Review .................................................................................. 14 COMBINED ARGUMENT ON FIRST AND SECOND ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR ............................................................................................................... 14 I. ORS 181A.820 broadly prohibits the use of public resources for the purpose of federal immigration enforcement. .......................................... 17 A. The text of ORS 181A.820(1) prohibits a broad scope of conduct relating to enforcement of the federal immigration laws. .............. 18 B. ORS 181A.820(2) and (3) confirm the broad scope of ORS 181A.820(1). .................................................................................. 20 C. The legislature intended to broadly prohibit local law enforcement from participating in enforcement of the federal immigration laws. ........................................................................................................ 22 II. NORCOR’s entry into and performance of the IGSA violates ORS 181A.820. ................................................................................................. 26 III. NORCOR’s booking notifications violate ORS 181A.820. ..................... 28 CROSS ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR ................................................................ 31 The trial court erred in rejecting Plaintiffs’ alternative standing argument based on Oregon’s common law and ORS 294.100. .................................................... 31 I. Preservation of Error ................................................................................ 31 II. Standard of Review .................................................................................. 32 ARGUMENT ...................................................................................................... 32 CONCLUSION ................................................................................................... 38 iii INDEX TO APPENDIX Description Page # Minutes, House Committee on Judiciary, Subcommittee 2, Feb APP-1 11, 1987 Testimony, House Committee on Judiciary, HB 2314, Feb 6, APP-3 1987 (statement of Danny Santos) Testimony, House Committee on Judiciary, HB 2314, Feb 6, APP-5 1987 (statement of Rep Rocky Barilla) Minutes, Senate Committee on Judiciary, May 20, 1987 APP-6 Minutes, Senate Committee on Judiciary, June 3, 1987 APP-9 Testimony, Senate Committee on Judiciary, HB 2314, May APP-12 20, 1987 (statement of Marilyn Coffel, Bureau of Labor and Industries) Testimony, Senate Committee on Judiciary, HB 2314, May APP-14 20, 1987 (statement of Lieutenant Lee Erickson, Oregon State Police) Testimony, Senate Committee on Judiciary, HB 2314, May APP-16 20, 1987 (statement of Robert Mendoza) Eric Carlson, Staff Measure Analysis, HB 2314 (May 20, APP-17 1987) Proposed Amendments to HB 2314 (May 21, 1987) APP-18 Testimony, Senate Committee on Judiciary, HB 2314, June 3, APP-19 1987 (statement of Danny Santos) Bill Taylor, Staff Measure Analysis, HB 2314 (Feb 6, 1987) APP-20 Enrolled House Bill 2314 APP-21 Eric Carlson, Staff Measure Analysis, HB 2314, A-Engrossed APP-22 (May 20, 1987) A-Engrossed House Bill 2314 (June 5, 1987) APP-23 A-Engrossed House Bill 23140 (with edits) APP-24 Senate Amendments to House Bill 2314 (June 5, 1987) APP-25 iv TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases Baker v. City of Lakeside 343 Or 70, 164 P3d 259 (2007) ....................................................................... 21 Bear Creek Valley Sanitary Auth. v. Hawkins 53 Or App 212, 631 P2d 808 (1981) ............................................................... 37 Becklin v. Bd. of Examiners for Eng’g 195 Or App 186, 97 P3d 1216 (2004) ................................................ 13, 14, 32 Brownfield v. Houser 30 Or 534, 49 P 843 (1897) ............................................................................. 35 Burness v. Multnomah Cnty. 37 Or 460, 60 P 1005 (1900) ........................................................................... 34 Burt v. Blumenauer 299 Or 55, 699 P2d 168 (1985) ................................................................ 35, 36 Carman v. Woodruff 10 Or 133 (1882) ...................................................................................... 35, 36 Cruz v. Multnomah County 279 Or App 1, 381 P23d 856 (2016) ............................................................... 34 Emerald People’s Utility Dist. v. Pac. Power & Light Co. 76 Or App 583, 711 P2d 179 (1985) ............................................................... 21 Fenimore v. Blachly-Lane Cnty. C.E.A. 297 Or App 47, 441 P3d 699 (2019) ............................................................... 32 Foote v. State 364 Or 558, 437 P3d 221 (2019) ..................................................................... 33 Fox v. Galloway 174 Or 339, 148 P2d 922 (1944) ..................................................................... 28 Glines v. Bain 157 Or 358, 72 P2d 33 (1937) ......................................................................... 36 Gosso v. Hart 123 Or 67, 261 P 80 (1927) ............................................................................. 35 v Gosso v. Riddell 123 Or 57, 261 P 77 (1927) ...................................................................... 35, 37 Gruber v. Lincoln Hosp. Dist. 285 Or 3, 588 P2d 1281