may please the court my name is josh segal an attorney for the petitioner i'd like to reserve two minutes rebuttal if i may your honour's as you can see from the extensive record in this case that the key question is the real deal the main issue is whether ice agents dozens of them armed with rifles descending on this flower farm out in the countryside in bands in a helicopter eventually arresting this terrified twenty or twenty year old woman who was hiding leading her out to a parking lot in handcuffs questioning her question her some more at a subsequent facility over over a period of an ordeal that lasted five to six hours the real question is is this what a reasonable officer see this entire scenario as something that violated some of our constitutional rights or specifically in the fifth amendment context is it something that detention after she they found her after she hit are you challenging what happened after that both your honor in the fourth amendment context the first the first question is was she even sees was there a seizure the government has said there wasn't even a fourth amendment event which means essentially she wasn't se because she was arrested in conjunction with a search warrant and she was i didn't understand him to say there wasn't a fourth amendment and i understood them to say at least in passing at least it's one of their points was that when she hi of her i mean then maybe you have a fifth amendment miranda problem i'm not sure what so first of all do you what is your what is your position with regard to the what they did after they found her  there was probable cause at that point to arrest her yes you know there wasn't there wasn't even why not so there she's hiding in a situation where they're looking for undocumented people why is there probable cause well first she wasn't mentioned the warrant so she so they said you know it was right wasn't  just in general we think there are undocumented people here know there was several there was a list of three or four or five people and they were arrested but then didn't also say and there are others so i think general like that i did it did say that so they find her hiding  this wasn't a criminal search warrant this was sort of in minnesota what does it mean to have an administrative warrant to search for undocumented individuals i mean how do you search for a god jochum an individual you look at them and you say they're undocumented that's a great question  that's a very good question it's a that's i'm back what was this a delgado kind of a war and the ones where they say what they're doing is they're coming in and they're doing a survey which means they're asking permissive questions and they're letting undocumented immigrants and there was a there was a question of do they have to comport with sort of the rule forty one requirement a probable cause that you find in a criminal search warrant which and they ultimately decided no that they don't have to there has to this was out of the district court of appeals in the district of columbia but what they what they decided was there is different levels of of probable cause or at least for the particularity a requirement for a warrant it doesn't have to be as particular as a criminal search warrant and so this isn't as low as sort of a and enforcement and osha kind of inspection search warrant but it's not as high as in the government head to head you find and once you get there how do you find out who's the building you had to stop them from leaving and you can ask them questions but you can't force them to answer yes yes and no but that still needs to comport with the fourth amendment the which is you know the touchstone is reasonable in this so everything everything has to be carefully tailored to that reasonableness requirement and that this court has said that numerous times over and again so when they first saw the petitioner she was hiding the color out there's three male officers they have rifles and right then they slap handcuffs on her argument is that right there that violated her for the way in that why isn't there a least enough for a carry stop at that point well because there's different ways that the question the first question if there is a seizure which there was the question is was it reasonable what was the detention reasonable under the circumstance well i'm going to just an awful lot of cases saying that for terry stops it's ok to handcuff people i mean i don't know but understood that but there certainly are cases but there's different ways to detain people they obviously see she's not armed there's three armed ice agents they see her they see maybe she's hispanic looking well we know from case law that's not enough being hispanic looking they can hire and the fact that she's hiding enough well well because the trial attorney argue that you're kind of pitting fourth and fifth amendment rights against one another and it and a witness should not be put in that position that was that was never reached by the immigration judge and subsequently by the board it was just not an issue that was reached so in a way we didn't and i may be forgetting but in the immigration judge think that there was probable cause that she was hiding no immigration judge found there was a seizure which was undisturbed by any of the board or any of her subsequent decisions she found that after her first prime official finding that the fifth amendment and regulatory violations existed she found that subsequent to her testimony that there wasn't this agree just like behavior that's something a reasonable officer would find by lease or her rights and in other words guns weren't pointing at her they weren't sort of you know she wasn't detained for a prolonged period of time though which is odd because this whole ordeal lasted five at least five hours maybe six hours the entire thing and to the point where she was nauseous at the end and threw up we don't know if she was ever given food or water throughout this entire incident the record is completely devoid of that but that they have a warrant and with a warrant somebody high doesn't that create more than just she was hiding that yes your honor but the question is if they came across say a white person why wouldn't they detain them when she she testified and this is an rebutted when she went out to the parking lot there was only hispanic people there being questioned but that was a ronnie white person who was hiding not that i know of not right ok ok so we're also arguing that the length of the detention was also a reasonable that she was let out in handcuffs so the detention itself has to be carefully tailored to the to the situation here we're not dealing with a criminal warrant we're dealing with an administrative warrant for an administrative violation being in the country illegally so the question is it did she have to be put in handcuffs and let what she was basically in handcuffs for as far as we can tell for five hours did what a of that i what point did she provide the information that provided the probable cause if it provided probable cause i mean aside from the hiding when she was let when she was let out to the parking lot right so after that why does anything have to do with suppression meaning at that point th the rights until she's put in proceedings which is but it's very odd that that's the that's the ruling of this court but you know i guess it's maybe that as i understood the question i have the question anyway didn't she provide the information that was going to be the problematic information for her before the hours and hours and bad time at the police office after about an hour in the parking lot yes your honor so why would we look at the time after that because any any arrest or any detention that leads to an arrest can lead to a due process violation if she was kept for the next two days in question you have a nine hundred eighty three claim but what i mean the information it does it's all harmless or doesn't matter or whatever because all the information was already obtained right like anything they got after ten more hours is irrelevant i think for the first suppression purposes right well so but the but the context the environment but what was happening up until that moment happened at that moment and three hours later in other words there were dozens of officers armed there in the parking lot she was she was asked questions in english alternately what you want to suppress say that is what you want to suppress the statement she made that led to the formation the two  bit of it's case but whatever it is it isn't this problem yes yes ok so bitterly so don't we stop at the point that she actually gave the information yes all right we can see are far less her argument is that she she the her will was over born under the fifth amendment context or a reasonable officer should have known in the fourth amendment context a reasonable officer should have known that they were violating her rights by a by not carefully tailoring her detention for the purposes of an administrative warrant tension up to the point in a parking lot when she said whatever she said yes and what what was if you thought there was and just said all depend on there not being any reasonable suspicion from the hiding or probable cause from the hiding yes that and subsequently that she's kept and she's kept in handcuffs she's asked questions in english a kid maybe a little bit of spanish it says but she didn't understand what she was being asked and she signed a paper and rhinestone them to come and essentially stop people from leaving and asked them questions and that them but they had to let them walk around and ask them questions which didn't have to answer is and in fact in this very case believe that she the petitioner was walking around until she decided to go hiding she was walking to talk to her supervisor or some or i don't know what it means to have an administrative warrant  to search for illegal aliens i mean you know have a sign on you that says i'm an illegal alien so you can't just go out you know when you search for something you go look to look for it but you know years it sounds a lot like an arrest warrant but it's not an supposed to figure out who it is you're seizing if you don't the only way that that could happen is through questioning your honor i would imagine voluntary questioning well not well yes voluntary questioning i believe that's that's that's the approach is that what happened here was this found question what yes yes yes we're relieved that she was not by the time this was a big difference in this case is that the seizure didn't occur at the at the at the outset from  from from the enforcement action here or the seizure occurred with isis obviously they had the warrant to search warrant they knew that there were there were documented workers there and they found their hiding and that raised at the very least reasonable suspicion to the te provide provide this authority that's what i say relies on that to eighty seven regulations and you're not arguing there was even probable cause i would argue there was probable cause but that's not what the immigration judge said even gratian judge so that  stop once they got her answer at that point i suppose at that point that probable yes that's correct they were hiding they transported her to the parking lot and then at that point they question her so we don't know the exact no the warrant i don't think it warrants being challenge i think that every circuit that has addressed the issue has found that this warrant is perfectly fine including this court in the international molders case where did adopt a black is house of beef standard for noosphere search warrant and that and the and that the issue with that warrant is a one of these cases i think it is a warrant that allows the entry but after that after the entry the question is how do you search for undocumented workers i mean that i come back to that  and the answer to that is gelcoat all right yes i think that so those are the two pieces you can get in because of this administrative run and then you have to do delgado which means you have to let them walk around and you say they did do that yes yes yes that's exactly that she hit exactly or she was walking around in this case and decided to hide and that then any questioning has to be voluntary but that doesn't apply to her you would say because when she hid they at least had reasonable happened after once i'm sorry and in the actual proceedings here was there any reliance on anything that happened after you know your honor it was just what she said in the parking lot yes when she did they once they had that information that's all they needed that's the only thing that's being attempted to be suppressed is her or her but did they then interrogate her again after she'd been detained longer i guess i'm all confused it seems like maybe doesn't matter but i am a little confused why they continued to detain her and then i think questioned her again they likely did question her again but just to confirm perhaps the information and to process or into removal proceedings to serve her with the n t a or you know do procedural procedural matters as to you know to get her into removal proceedings but i don't i think that once you identify her or undocumented status up in the parking lot from that point forth i don't think that it matters that it's an issue  heart that i found just concerning was that your brief goes back to this whole summer's ameena argument which really is if you seem to be trying to marry the two to get to the this warrant has a different kind of a warrant it's not a search for anything it's a search for people it's still a warrant there requires a finding of probable cause it's a flexible standard but at least in this case a search for people is a very strange kind of a warrant a certain ordinary search warrant and and pull it up together with mena and summers and and think that now we now we don't have delgado anymore going out the window i mean that seems to be the position that the the findings of fact and the legal findings that underlie the whole agency decision and the board simply supplement that are on appeal addressing the argument presented to it but the board adopted an affirmed in immigration judges in particular september two thousand and eleven decisions where the immigration judge made the findings that this was a combination of both the the search warrant and straight search warrant together with the hiding of the petitioner i believe that so this administrative blackies war as they call it there was search for the there's no affidavit in the administrative record at all so we don't even know what the problem cause was founded on particularly  when the petitioner in this case was not even mentioned in the warrant and i understand there's language in there that says well you can and you can find it and evidence of any other illegal alien on the premises but we don't know what the affidavit says there was that the law enforcement interest in protecting their safety was highest in cases like that where you're looking for guns and drugs and evidence of gang representation of my house in the last question that i asked  both grounds it in her initial decision the immigration judge says under summers and dawson and maina i believe that there doesn't even have to be a finding of reasonable suspicion that under those cases alone she was lawfully detained and understanding of what the board adopted but this in summers written summer is reversed minute the whole context is these rule forty one criminal arrest warrants where pretty clear what kind of level probably cause you need to go in people are detained offers officer security is at extremely high is at its highest as i think is a saying that in those cases this is an administrative warrant for an administrative violation what was the point of arresting a twenty year old girl when you have three officers with rifles pointed out or and leading her out to this parking lot that you can detain someone by pointing at them it's in a hay stay right there i guess the point was to if they had at in the record that indicates what what the an officer was thinking there was no test what's the difference what i was thinking well it's because it's that because we're trying to we're trying to put ourselves in the position of a reasonable officer who has to carefully tailor a detention to an administrative arrest warrant like this what's what's the point in handcuffing her and leading her out and keeping her in handcuffs because you're sort of beyond the administrative search at this point that's the problem i  response to it and i think that's what the i j a said at twelve thirty i mean the first i j opinion says they had reasonable suspicion because she was hiding and she was in this place where they thought they were undocumented people yeah and it was based on her cooperate that action may have been totally different y that they guns were not pointed at yes subsequent testimony elaborated on that and establish that guns were not pointed at her she she was asked and they weren't pointed at her ok thank you both very much another