Court dilutes verdict on immigrants

• But Court Sidesteps Whether Immigrants are Protected by the 4th Amendment

A Utah judge's controversial decision that undocumented immigrants are not entitled to constitutional protections against unreasonable searches and seizures was diluted, but not directly overturned, in a Thursday appeals court decision. The 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals avoided a ruling on the issue, resolving the case of Jorge Esparza-Mendoza on much narrower legal grounds and opting not to address the broader constitutional question first raised by U.S. District Judge Paul Cassell last year. In his May 2003 ruling, Cassell determined that Esparza-Mendoza, a Mexican national previously deported from the United States, was illegally detained by police in October 2002. However, Cassell also found that the violation was inconsequential because Esparza-Mendoza was not entitled to Fourth Amendment protections. A three-judge panel on Thursday overturned Cassell's ruling that the detention was illegal, declining to address the second part of his ruling. "We conclude that Esparza-Mendoza's encounter with police was consensual and thus did not implicate the Fourth Amendment," the unanimous opinion states. "Therefore we affirm without having the opportunity to decide whether we agree with the district court's comprehensive analysis of who are 'the people' protected by the Fourth Amendment." [more ]