COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT Suffolk, ss. SJC-12276 COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS, Respondent-Appellee, v. SREYNUON LUNN, Petitioner-Appellant. PETITION PURSUANT TO G.L. c. 211, § 3 AS RESERVED AND REPORTED BY JUSTICE LENK BRIEF FOR AMICI CURIAE BRISTOL COUNTY BAR ADVOCATES, INC., MASSACHUSETTS ASSOCIATION OF CRIMINAL DEFENSE LAWYERS, PILGRIM ADVOCATES, INC., AND SUFFOLK LAWYERS FOR JUSTICE, INC. IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONER-APPELLANT Matthew R. Segal Kirsten v. Mayer BBO #654489 BBO #641567 Jessie J. Rossman Kim B. Nemirow BBO #670685 BBO #663258 Laura Rotolo ROPES & GRAY LLP BBO #665247 Prudential Tower Carlton E. Williams 800 Boylston Street BBO #660973 Boston, MA 02199-3600 AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES Tel: 617-951-7000 UNION FOUNDATION OF [email protected] MASSACHUSETTS 211 Congress Street Laura Murray-Tjan Boston, MA 02110 BBO #649609 Tel: 617-482-3170 FEDERAL IMMIGRATION [email protected] APPEALS PROJECT 6 Beacon Street (additional counsel on Suite 900 back of cover) Boston, MA 02108 Tel: 617-580-1717 [email protected] Omar C. Jadwat* Spencer E. Amdur* AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION IMMIGRANTS' RIGHTS PROJECT 125 Broad Street 18th Floor New York, NY 10004 Tel: 212-549-2600 [email protected] Cody H. Wofsy* AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION IMMIGRANTS' RIGHTS PROJECT 39 Drumm Street San Francisco, CA 94111 Tel: 415-343-0770 [email protected] *Application for admission pro hac vice forthcoming. I I TABLE OF CONTENTS I INTRODUCTION ......................................... 1 ISSUES PRESENTED FOR REVIEW .......................... 3 I INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE. 4 I BACKGROUND. 4 I. The Trump Administration has expressed animus against Mexican nationals and I Muslims, and has adopted aggressive immigration enforcement policies consistent I with that animus ................................ 5 A. The Trump Administration has expressed discriminatory views about Mexican I nationals and Muslims ...................... 5 B. The Trump Administration has intensified federal immigration I enforcement. 8 II. State and local officers are enforcing ICE I detainers across the Commonwealth .............. 14 I SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT ............................. 16 ARGUMENT . 18 I I. Arrests based solely on ICE detainers violate article 14 of the Massachusetts I Declaration of Rights .......................... 19 A. Arrests based solely on ICE detainers violate article 14's probable cause I requirement, prohibiting warrantless arrests for civil infractions ............. 20 B. Arrests based solely on ICE detainers I violate article 14's particularity requirement ............................... 22 I C. Arrests based solely on ICE detainers violate article 14's rule requiring presentment to a magistrate within 24 I hours ..................................... 25 I i I I D. Arrests based on ICE detainers violate I article 14's requirement that an arrest be supported by a statutory or common law grant of arrest authority ............. 26 I 1. A warrantless arrest lacking statutory or common law authority I violates article 14 .................. 27 2 . Massachusetts and federal law do I not supply arrest authority for federal civil immigration offenses. 2 8 I II. Arrests based solely on ICE detainers violate the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution ............................ 31 I A. ICE detainers do not provide particularized probable cause ............. 31 I B. ICE detainers do not provide the particularized facts required for an I arrest under Section 1357 ................. 33 III. This Court should exercise its I superintendence powers to issue safeguards governing any assistance court officers may provide to immigration enforcement ............. 34 I A. This Court's superintendence authority necessarily includes the power to I supervise the facilitation of immigration enforcement by Massachusetts court officers .............. 35 I B. State Authorities' cooperation in the current detainer process risks discriminatory immigration enforcement .... 38 I 1. State Authorities' cooperation with ICE detainers raises I significant due process concerns ..... 39 2. State Authorities' cooperation I with ICE detainers raises significant equal protection concerns ............................. 42 I ii I I I I C. The Court should exercise its superintendence powers to protect against the substantial risk of I discriminatory enforcement posed by ICE detainers. 4 6 I CONCLUSION .......................................... 49 I CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE ........................... 51 ADDENDUM. Add. 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I iii I I TABLE OF AUTHORITIES I Cases Page (s) I Arizona v. United States, 132 S. Ct. 2492 (2012) ........................ 21, 29 Aziz v. Trump, I U.S. Dist. Ct., No. 1:17-cv-116 (E.D. Va. Feb. 13, 2 017) .................................... 4 2 I Campatelli v. Chief Justice of Trial Court, 4 6 8 Mass . 4 55 ( 2 014 ) .............................. 3 6 I Commonwealth v. Craan, 469 Mass. 24 (2014) ....................... 19, 27, 28 I Commonwealth v. Frodyma, 3 8 6 Mass . 4 3 4 ( 19 8 2 ) .............................. 2 6 I Commonwealth v. Hernandez, 456 Mass. 528 (2010) .............................. 27 I Commonwealth v. Holmes, 344 Mass. 524 (1962) .............................. 28 Commonwealth v. Howe, I 405 Mass. 332 ( 1989) .............................. 29 Commonwealth v. Jackson, I 464 Mass. 758 (2013) ...................... 19, 20, 22 Commonwealth v. Kotlyarevskiy, I 59 Mass. App. Ct. 240 (2003) ...................... 19 Commonwealth v. O'Brien, I 432 Mass. 478 (2000) .............................. 34 Commonwealth v. Rodriguez, I 4 3 0 Mass . 57 7 ( 2 0 0 0) .......................... 19, 31 Commonwealth v. Rodriguez, I 472 Mass. 767 (2015) .............................. 20 Commonwealth v. Santaliz, 413 Mass. 238 (1992) .............................. 20 I Commonwealth v. Stephens, 4 51 Mass . 3 7 0 ( 2 0 0 8) .......................... 19, 2 3 I iv I I I I Commonwealth v. Suggs, 70 Mass. App. Ct. 1104 (2007) ..................... 22 I Commonwealth v. Valerio, 449 Mass. 562 (2007) .............................. 25 I County of Riverside v. McLaughlin, 500 u.s. 44 (1991) ................................ 25 I F.C.C. v. Fox Television Stations, Inc., 132 S. Ct. 2307 (2012) ............................ 39 I Finch v. Commonwealth Health Ins. Connector Auth., 461 Mass. 232 (2012) .............................. 45 I Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408 u.s. 104 (1972) ............................... 41 I Hawaii v. Trump, U.S. Dist. Ct., No. 17-00050 DKW-KSC (D. I Haw. Mar. 15, 2017) .................... 8, 13, 14, 42 Hill v. Colorado, I 530 u.s. 703 (2000) ............................... 39 Illinois v. Gates, I 462 u.s. 213 (1983) ............................... 32 Illinois v. Wardlow, 528 u.s. 119 (2000) ............................... 32 I Immigration & Naturalization Serv. v. Lopez­ Mendoza, I 468 u.s. 1032 (1984) .............................. 20 Int'l Refugee Assistance Project v. Trump, U.S. Dist. Ct., No. TDC-17-0361 (D. Md. I Mar. 16, 2017) ............................. 7, 13, 42 Jenkins v. Chief Justice, I 4 1 6 Mass . 2 2 1 ( 19 9 3 ) . 19 , 2 5 Maryland v. Pringle, I 540 u.s. 366 (2003) ........................... 23, 32 In re McDonough, I 457 Mass. 512 (2010) .............................. 36 I v I I Miller v. United States, I 357 u.s. 301 (1958) ............................... 27 Miranda-Olivares v. Clackamas County, I U.S. Dist. Ct., No. 3:12-cv-02317-ST (D. Or. Apr. 11, 2 014) ............................ 18, 2 6 I Morales v. Chadbourne, 793 F. 3d 208 (1st Cir. 2015) ...................... 18 Morales v. Chadbourne, I U.S. Dist. Ct., No. CV 12-301-M-LDA (D.R.I. Jan. 24, 2017) ......................... 23-24 I Moreno v. Napolitano, U.S. Dist. Ct., No. 11 C 5452 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 30, 2016) ................................... 34 I Moscoso v. A Justice of the East Boston Division of the Boston Municipal Court, I No. SJ-2016-0168 (May 26, 2016) ................... 20 Orellana v. Nobles County, I U.S. Dist. Ct., No. 15-cv-03852 ADM/SER (D. Minn. Jan. 6, 2017) ....................... 18, 33 I Reid v. Georgia, 448 u.s. 438 (1980) ............................... 32 I Romer v. Evans, 517 u.s. 620 (1996) ............................... 43 Santos v. Frederick Cty. Bd. of Comm'rs, I 725 F. 3d 451 (4th Cir. 2013) ...................... 29 Matter of Troy, I 364 Mass. 15 (1973) ............................... 35 United States v. Am, I 564 F.3d 25 (1st Cir. 2009) ....................... 32 United States v. Davis, I 94 F.3d 1465 (lOth Cir. 1996) ..................... 32 United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, I 494 u.s. 259 (1990) ............................... 18 United States v. Walden, 146 F. 3d 487 (7th Cir. 1998) ...................... 33 I vi I I I I United States v. Williams, 553 u.s. 285 (2008) ............................... 40 I Vohra v. United States, U.S. Dist. Ct., No. SA CV 04-00972 (C.D. I Cal. Feb. 4, 2010) ............................... 24 Washington v. Trump, U.S. Dist. Ct., No. C17-014JLR (W.D. Wa. I Feb . 3 , 2 0 1 7 ) ..................................... 12 Washington v. Trump, I 847 F.3d 1151 (9th Cir. 2017) .............. 12-13, 42 Ybarra v. Illinois, I 444 u.s. 85 (1979) ............................ 23, 32 Zadyvdas v. Davis, I 533 u.s. 678 (2001) ............................... 39 In re Zita, I 4 55 Mass . 2 7 2 ( 2 0 0 9) .............................. 3 6 Constitutions and Statutes I U.S. Const. amend. IV ............................ passim I Mass. Const. art. 14