2007 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit
3-16-2007 

# U SA v . L a vi l le
P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 06-1577

F o l low thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi l l a nova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2007

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit or y

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2007 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit or y

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C a rl s on@l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du
. Re c omme nde d C it at ion

" U SA v . L a vi l le " (2007). 2007 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1383. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi l l a nova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2007/1383P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT


### No. 06- 1577
UN I TE D S TA TE S O F A ME RI CA , Appe l l ant

v. KE VIN L AV I LL E

APP EAL F ROM THE UNI TE D ST ATE S DI S TRI CT C OURT F OR T HE DI S T RI CT OF T HE VI RG I N I S L ANDS

D
. C
. C ri m . N o . 0 4 -cr-00 1 4 2 -1 D i s t r i ctJ udge: T he H onor abl e C ur t i s V
. G om ez

A r gued: D ece m ber4, 2006

B efore: M cK E E , B A R R Y and S T A P L E T O N , C i rcui tJudg es

( O pi ni on Fi l ed: M ar ch 16, 2007)

J ohn- A l ex R om ano, E s q. ( A r gued) U ni t ed St at es D epart m entof J us t i ce C r i m i nal D i vi s i on P. O
. B ox 899 B en Fr ankl i n St at i on W as hi ngt on, D
. C
. 20044- 0899

- AND-2 A ngel a P. T y s on- Fl oy d, E s q. O ffi ce of t he U ni t ed St at es A t t or ney 1108 K i ng St r eet , Sui t e 201 C h ristia n ste d , S t. C ro ix U SV I , 00820 C ouns el forA ppel l ant

N at al i e N
. T ang H ow , E s q. ( A r gued) 27 & 28 K i ng C r os s St r eet C h ristia n ste d , S t. C ro ix U SV I , 00820 C ouns el forA ppel l ee

OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

B A R R Y , C i r cui tJ udge W h a t is re q u ire d f

o r a f in d in g o f p ro b a b le c a u se w ith in th e m e a n in g o f

th e F o u rth A m e n d m e n t ca n b e a d if f icu lt qu est i on , m ade m ore di ffi cultw hen , as here, t here i s a m i s u n d e r s t a n d i n g a s t o w h a to n e o f o u rd e c i s i o n s h a s h e l d
. We w rite to c o rre c t th a t m isu n d e rsta n d in g b ym a k in g c lea r th a t sta te orl ocal l aw does notdi ct at e the r eas onabl enes s of an a r r es tfor pu rposes of a F ou rth A m end m ent pr ob able cause analy si s— a vi ol at i on of s t at e orl ocal l aw i s not , i n ot herw or ds , a per se vi ol at i on of the Four t h A m endment
. R ather , not w i t hs t andi ng t he vali dityof the arr estun der st at e or l ocal l aw , probab l e cause ex ist s w h en the to tal ityo f th e c ir cu m stan ce s w ith in an o ff icer’s know l edge i s s uffi ci entt o w arr anta per s on of r eas onabl e ca ut i on to c o n c lu d e th a t th e p e rso n b e in g a rre ste d h a s c o m m itt e d o r is comm i t t i ng an off

ens e. W e fi nd t hatt he ci r cumst ance s su rro u n d in g th e w a rra n tles s a rre st b e f o re u s g a v e rise to pr obabl e ca us e t o bel i eve thatan off ens e had be en comm i t t ed3 a n d re n d e re d th a t ar re st re a so n a b le u n d e r th e F o u rth A m e n d m e n t. W e w ill, th e re f o re , re v e rs e . I. I n t he ea r l ym or ni ng hour s of Tuesda y , A ugus t17, 2004, s om et i m e bef

or e 7: 00 A
. M
. , a boatcarr y i ng 32 i l l egal al i ens r an a g r o u n d o n a r e e f

i n Ch r i s t i a n s t e d h a rb o r , S t
. Cr o i x . An ey ew i t nes s on t he w har f phoned the V i r gi n I s l ands Pol i ce D epart m ent( “V I PD ”) t o r epor tt hati l l egal al i ens w er e exi t i ng t he boatand comi ng as hor e. O f f ice r A ld e m a r S a n to s o f

th e V IP D M a rin e U n it r es ponded t o t he ca l l betw een 7 a nd 8: 00 A
. M
. Fr om t he w har f, he conf i r m ed thata boathad i ndeed run agr ound i n t he harbor and thata number of peopl e w er e s t i l l onboar d. H e al s o s poke w i t h t he ci t i zen w ho had phoned the pol i ce, M ark Sperber , and Sperberpoi nt ed outfourH i s pani c- l ooki ng i ndi vi dual s s i t t i ng nearbyon t he boar dw al k. Sant os appr oache d t hem and id e n tifie d h im se lf

a s a p o lice o f

f ice r. In re sp o n se to h is ques t i oni ng, t he i ndi vi dual s s t at ed thatt heyw er e C ubans , t hat theyh ad co m e o ff

the s tr an d ed b o at, an d that o ther a li en s w ere i n t h e v i c i n i t y. Sperberi ndepende nt l yadvi s ed Sant os t hatot heri l l egal a l i e n s h a d c o me a s h o r e a n d we r e a r o u n d t h e c o r n e r . As addi t i onal pol i ce uni t s arr i ved, Sperberoffe r ed t o i dent i fyt he o ther a li en s. S an tos, Sp erb er, an d sev era l un ifo rm ed o ff icers w al ked dow n t he boar dw al k and ar ound t he corner , and Sperber poi nt ed outt hr ee bl ack mal es s i t t i ng on a benc h. W hen the men s aw t he appr oachi ng offi cer s , Sant os l at ert es t i fi ed, “theys t ood u p a n d s ta rt e d w a lk in g a w a yre a lly f a s t.” (A p p . v o l. I I a t 3 9 .) H opi ng t o cutt he men off, Sant os w al ked dow n a s i de s tr e e t w h ile th e o th e r o f f ic e rs c o n tin u e d to f

o llo w th e th re e m e n . O n hi s r adi o, he hea r d an off i cers hout“he’ s runni ng” and anotheroffi cers ayt hatone of the men w as headi ng t ow ar d a s hoppi ng ar ea on Str and St r eet
. Sant os pr ocee ded i n t he d ire c tio n o f

th e sh o p p in g a re a , w h e re h e sa w a p p e llan t K e v in L avi l l e, w ho he r ecogni zed a s one of the men w ho had bee n4 s i t t i ng on t he benc h. U pon s pot t i ng Sant os , L avi l l e bega n t o run, buts t opped w hen Sant os y el l ed “Pol i ce; s t op. ” Sant os or der ed L a v ill e to p u t h is h a n d s u p , p a tted h im d o w n , an d p lac e d h im in han dcu ffs. A s th e yw a lk e d b a c k to th e p o lice c a r, L a v ill e sta ted , in r es pons e t o Sant os ’ s ques t i ons , t hathe w as fr om D om i ni ca a nd w as a cr ew m ember on t he s t r anded boa t
. L avi l l e as ked w hat i s l and he w as on, butSant os bel i eved thatL avi l l e knew he w as on St
. C r oi x. M eanw hi l e, t he otheroffi cer s appr ehende d al l of t he i ndi vi dual s w ho had come as hor e. L at ert hatm or ni ng, agent s fr om I m m i gr at i on and C us t om s E nfor cement( “I C E ”) came t o t he pol i ce s t at i on and t ook cus t odyof al l of the det ai ned i ndi vi dual s , i ncl udi ng L avi l l e. T h e n e x t d a y , u til izin g a p h o to a rra yo f a ll 3 2 in d iv id u a ls w h o h ad b ee n o n the b o at, fo u r of the C u b an p asse n g ers iden ti fied L av il le an d co -de fe n d an t C arter M ag loir e a s the b o at’s oper at or s . T hats ame day , I C E A gentD avi d L ever i ng and O f f ic e r S a n to s c o n d u c te d a v id e o ta p e d in te rv ie w o f L a v ille
. A ft er bei ng adv i sed of

his Mi r anda r i ght s , he aga i n s t at ed thathe w as fr om D om i nica and h ad h el ped t o o perat e t he b oat. H e al so sa id th a t h e b e liev e d h e h a d lan d e d o n th e isla n d o f T o rto la in the B ri ti sh V ir g in Island s. F ive a d d it ion al pa ssen g ers s u b s e q u e n t l yi d e n t i f

i e d L a v i l l e a s a me mb e ro f t h e b o a t ’ s c r e w. O n Sept ember 14, 2004, a fe der al gr and j ur yr etur ned a th re e -c o u n t in d ictm e n t ch a rg in g L a v ill e a n d M a g lo ire w ith c o n s p ir a c yto b ri n g in ille g a l a lie n s in v io la tio n o f 8 U .S .C . § 1324( a) ( 1) ( A ) ( v) ( i ) ( C ount1) ; br i ngi ng i n i l l egal al i ens for fi nanci al gai n i n vi ol at i on of 8 U
. S. C
. § 1324( a) ( 2) ( B ) ( i i ) ( C ount 2 ); a n d b ri n g in g in ille g a l a lie n s in v io la tio n o f 8 U .S .C . § 1324( a) ( 1) ( A ) ( i ) ( C ount3)
. T he D i s t r i ctC our tl at ers ever ed L avi l l e’ s cas e fr om t hatof M agl oi r e, and M agl oi r e w as t r i ed and convi ct ed on C ount s 2 and 3. L avi l l e fi l ed pr o s e m ot i ons t o s uppr es s t he i dent i fi cat i ons and anyevi dence obt ai ned as a r es ul tof hi s arr es t , i ncl udi ng s t at ement s m ade t o O ffi cerSant os and I C E
. O n A ugus t16, 2005, t he D i s t r i ctC our thel d a s uppr es s i on hear i ng atw hi chL avi ll e has f i l ed a pr o s e R ul e 28( j ) l et t err ai s i ng 1 num er ous cons t i tu t i o n a l o b j e c t i ons t o hi s pr os ecut i on and t o U ni t ed St at es i m m i gr at i on pol i cy . A s t hes e ar e nei t herpr opers ubj ect s for a R ul e 28(

j ) l et t ernorpr operm at t er s forcons i der at i on on i n t e r l o c u t o r ya p p e a l , we d o n o tc o n s i d e rt h e m. 5 La v i l l e wa s r e p r e s e n t e d b yc o u n s e l
. Of f i c e rS a n t o s a n d I CE A gent s L ever i ng and K i r k T hom as t es t i fi ed t o t he ci r cumst ance s of Lavi l l e’ s arr es t , hi s pos t
- arr es ts t at ement s , hi s i dent i fi cat i on b yv a ri o u s p a s s e n g e rs , a n d h is IC E in te rv ie w . O n F eb rua ry2 , 2 0 0 6 , the D istri ct C o u rtg ran ted L av il le’s m ot i on t o s uppr es s hi s pos t
- arr es ts t at ement s t o t he V I PD and I C E , butdeni ed hi s m ot i on t o s uppr es s t he i dent i fi cat i ons . T he governm entt i m el yappea l ed. II. W e have j ur i s di ct i on overt hi s i nt er l ocut or yappea l of a s uppr es s i on or derpur s uantt o 18 U
. S. C
. § 3731. I n r evi ew i ng a s uppr es s i on or der , w e exe r ci s e pl enaryr evi ew overt he D i s t r i ct C our t ’ s l egal concl us i ons , and w e r evi ew t he under l y i ng fac tual f in d in g s f o r c le a r e rr o r. U

ni t ed Stat es v. D el

f i n- C ol i na , 464 F. 3d 3 9 2 , 3 9 5 -96 (3d C ir
. 2 0 0 6 ). 1 A . L avi l l e’ s P os t - A rre s t St at em ent s t o O f f i cer Santos T he D i s t r i ctC our tfound thatO ffi cerSant os arr es t ed L avil l e w i t ho ut a w arr ant, and t hat att he ti m e of the arr est pr obabl e ca us e t o bel i eve Lavi l l e w as an al i en s m uggl erw as lac k in g . A t m o st, th e D istric t C o u rt f o u n d , the re w a s p ro b a b le caus e t o bel i eve onl yt hatL avi l l e had e nt er ed the U ni t ed St at es ille g a lly in v io la tio n o f

8 U .S .C . § 1 3 2 5

— a m is d e m e a n o r. C i t i ng, butm i s r eadi ng, ourdeci s i on i n U nited S t ates v. M

yers , 308 F. 3d 251 ( 3d C i r . 2002) , t he D i s t r i ctC our tconcl uded that beca us e the val i di t yof an a r r es ti s det erm i ned byt he l aw of the s t at e w her e the arr es toccurr ed, i tneed l ook no fur t hert han V i r gi n I s l ands s t atut or yl aw t o det erm i ne the r eas onabl enes s of L a v ille ’s a rr e s t u n d e r t h e F o u rt h A m e n d m e n t. U n d e r 5 V .I.C . §6 3562( 1) , a mi s demeanorm us tbe comm i t t ed i n t he pr es ence of t he off i ceri n or dert o j us t i fya w arr ant l es s arr es t
. B eca us e the cr i m e of i l l egal entr yw as compl et ed bef or e the off

i cer s arr i ved, t he D i s t r i ctC our tr eas oned, Sant os had no author i t yunder V i r g i n I s l a n d s l a w t o c o n d u c ta w a r r a n t l e s s a r r e s t
. A c c o r d i n g l y, t her e w as a per se vi ol at i on of the Four t h A m endment , and the C o u rt s u p p re s s e d L a v ille ’s p o s t- a rr e s t s ta te m e n ts
. B ecause the gov ernm ent, t oo , m i sr eads M yers , i tdoes not c h a llen g e th e D istric t C o u rt’s c o n c lu sio n th a t an a rre st th a t is in v a lid u n d e r te rrito ria l law

— o r sta te o r lo c a l law

— is u n re a so n a b le pers e undert he Four t h A m endment
. I ns t ead, t he governm entar gues t hatL avi l l e’ s arr es tw as l aw ful beca us e the crim e o f il lega l entryh ad n o t bee n co m p let ed b ef o re the o ff

icers a rr iv e d o r, a lte rn a tiv e ly, th a t ille g a l e n tr yis a c o n tin u in g o f f e n s e . W e nee d notaddr es s t hes e ar gum ent s , how ever , beca us e the r eas onabl enes s of Lavi l l e’ s arr es tundert he Four t h A m endment d o e s n o td e p e n d o n wh e t h e ri twa s l a wf u l u n d e rt e r r i t o r i a l l a w. B. O ur H ol di ng i n M yers W e a re c o m p e lled , at th e o u tse t, t o c lar if yw h a t w e d id and di d nothol d i n M

yers . M yers co n ce rne d a p o li ce o ff icer’s e n tryin to a n a p a rtm e n t in re sp o n se to a re p o rt o f p o ss ib le dom es t i c vi ol ence i nvol vi ng a per s on w i t h a gun, and the su b seq u en t arresto f th e d ef en d an t bec au se o f th e o ff icer’s s us pi ci on t hata cr i m e w as underw ay . W e conc l uded thatt he offi cerw as j us t i fi ed i n ent er i ng t he apa r t m entbutl acke d p ro b a b le c a u s e to a rr e s t th e d e f e n d a n t o n c e in s id e . M

yers , 308 F .3 d a t 2 6 5 . In re a c h in g th is c o n c lu sio n , w e p a in sta k in g ly ex am ined all o f th e c ir cu m stan ce s w ith in the o ff icer’s kn ow l edg e att he ti m e of the arr est
. W e did not consi der these ci r cumst ance s i n i s ol at i on, butnece s s ar i l ym eas ur ed them a g a in st th e p o ten tial o f

f e n se s f o r w h ich th e d e f

e n d a n t co u ld conce i vabl yhave be en cha r ged. W e found thatt he ci r cumst ance s s ur r oundi ng t he arr es tw er e i ns uffi ci entt o j us t i fy a re a so n a b le b e lief

th a t any o f

f e n s e h a d b e e n c o m m itte d
. Id

. at 284 ( A l ar con, J
. , di s s ent i ng) ( “The M aj or i t yhas concl uded that O ffi cerA zza r ano di d nothave pr obabl e ca us e t o arr es tM y er s for an ycrim e.”).O th e r c o u rt s o f a p p e a ls a re in a c c o rd
. See , e. g. , U n it ed 2 St at es v. Mi kul

s ki , 3 1 7 F .3 d 1 2 2 8 , 1 2 3 2 (1 0 th C ir. 2 0 0 3 ); P as i ew i cz v . L a ke C o u n ty F o re st P re se rv e D ist. , 2 7 0 F
. 3 d 5 2 0 , 5 2 7 (7th C ir
. 2 0 0 1 ); U ni t ed Stat es v. B aker , 1 6 F
. 3 d 8 5 4 , 8 5 6 n . 1 (8th C ir
. 1 9 9 4 ); c f. A tw a te r v . C ity o

f L a g o V

ista , 532 U
. S. 318, 341- 45 ( 2001) ( cons i der i ng stat e la w as one meas ur e of the r eas onabl enes s of w a rr a n tle s s a rr e s ts f

o r m is d e m e a n o rs ).

7 O ne of the s t at e- l aw cr i m es w e cons i der ed w as t he m i s demeanoroffe ns e of s i m pl e as s aul t
. I n di s cus s i ng t hat off ense, w e no t ed a P enn sy l van i a st atute aut ho ri zi ng w arr antl ess arr es t s form i s demeanor s onl yw hen theyar e comm i t t ed i n t he pr es ence of the arr es t i ng offi cerorw hen s peci fi cal l yauthor i zed bys t atut e. N ot i ng t hatt he val i di t yof an a r r es ti s det erm i ned by th e la w o f

th e s ta te w h e re th e a rr e s t o c c u rr e d , i d. a t2 5 5 , we c o n c lu d e d th a t th e o f

f ice r’s w a rra n tles s a rre st f o r sim p le a ss a u lt “i s notauthor i zed u n d e rPe n n s y l v a n i a l a w u n less the re co rd es t abl i s hes t hata s i m pl e as s aul toccurr ed i n hi s pr es ence . ” I d. at 256 ( emphasi s added)
. I ti s i m por t antt o not e thatw e di d not addr es s t he r el at i ons hi p betw een Penns y l vani a l aw and the fede r al l aw of pr obabl e ca us e, and w e ce r t ai nl ydi d nothol d t hat t he form erdi ct at ed the l at t er . I ndeed, w e made i tqui t e cl eart hat t he val i di t yof an a r r es tunders t at e l aw m us tneverbe conf us ed orconfl at ed w i t h t he Four t h A m endmentconce ptof r eas onabl enes s , and thatt he val i di t yof an a r r es tunders t at e l aw i s atm os ta fa ct ort hata courtm aycons i deri n as s es s i ng the br oaderques t i on of pr obabl e ca us e. C f. Ke r v . C a lif

o rn ia , 374 2 U
. S. 23, 38 ( 1963) ( pl ur al i t yopi ni on) ( cons i der i ng w hether arr es tw as r eas onabl e undert he Four t h A m endment “notw i t hs t andi ng i t s l egal i t yunders t at e l aw ”)
. I n concl us i on, w e h e ld th a t th e to talityo f th e c irc u m sta n c e s d id n o t g iv e rise to p ro b a b le c a u se to b e liev e th a t an a ss a u lt h a d o c c u rre d a t all, m u c h le s s in th e a rr e s tin g o f f ic e r’ s p re s e n c e . M

yers , 308 F. 3d at 258 ( not i ng t hatt he arr es t i ng offi cer ’ s t es t i m ony“does not e sta b lish a re a so n a b le b e lief th a t M y e rs h a d a ss a u lted B e n n e tt, an d itce rt ainlyd o es n o t est ab li sh an yassa u ltin the o ff icer’s p re se n c e ” ); s e e a ls o id

. at262 ( “[T] he t es t i m onydoes not s uppor ta fi ndi ng t hatt he off i cerhad a r eas onabl e bel i ef that M y e rs h a d b e e n in v o lv e d in a p h y s ic a l a lte rc a tio n w ith B e n n e tt.8 L ik e w ise , the tes tim o n yd o e s n o t co rro b o ra te th a t a ‘ stru g g le o c c u rr e d o r t h a t th e o f

f ic e r t h o u g h t o n e h a d .’” ). W e di d nothol d i n M

yers a n d , ind e e d , h a v e n e v e r h e ld th a t an a rre st th a t is u n law f u l u n d e r sta te o r lo c a l law is unr eas onabl e per se undert he Four t h A m endment
. Y et , t he D i s t r i ctC our teff

ect i vel yappl i ed j us ts uch a per se ru le w h e n it hel d t hatSant os ’ s w arr ant l es s arr es tfora mi s demeanorthat a rg u a b ly d id n o t o c c u r i n h is p re s e n c e v io la te d 5 V .I.C . § 3562( 1) , t he V i r gi n I s l ands ’ s m i s demeanor

- pr es ence s t atut e, and w a s , th e re f

o re , u n re a s o n a b le u n d e r t h e F o u rt h A m e n d m e n t. A per se rul e i nappr opr i at el ydr aw s fede r al cour t s i nt o t he en fo rce m en t of

stat e a n d loca l l aw . B ysu p p ressing L av il le’s p o st-a rre st s tate m e n ts b e c a u se it fo u n d a v io latio n o f th e V irg in Isla n d s’s m isd e m e a n o r-p re se n c e ru le, th e D istric t C o u rt w a s, in eff ecti f noti n fac t , enfor ci ng t err i t or i al cr i m i nal pr ocedur e, and d o ing so in a p rose cu ti o n b ythe f ed era l go v ern m en t fo r a vi ol at i on of fe der al l aw . I ti s w el l under s t ood, how ever , t hat “[m]e r e vi ol at i on of a s t at e s t atut e does noti nfr i nge the fe der al C ons t i tut i on, ” and that“[s ] t at e r athert han fe der al cour t s ar e the appr opr i at e i ns t i tut i ons t o enfor ce s t at e rul es . ” A r chi e v. C i t y of R aci ne , 8 4 7 F .2 d 1 2 1 1 , 1 2 1 6 , 1 2 1 7 (7 th C ir. 1 9 8 8 ) (e n b a n c ); s ee als o J o h n so n v . Fa n ke ll , 520 U
. S. 911, 919 ( 1997) ( not i ng “‘ t he i m por t ance of s t at e contr ol of s t at e j udi ci al pr ocedur e’ ” ( quot i ng H e n ry M . H a rt , J r., The R elat i ons B etw een Stat e and Feder al Law , 5 4 C o lu m . L . R e v . 4 8 9 , 5 0 8 (1 9 5 4 ))); P oul os v. St at e of N ew H am pshir e , 345 U
. S. 395, 409 ( 1953) ( s t at i ng, i n t he due p ro c e ss c o n tex t, th a t “o f f icia l f a ilu re s to a c t in a c c o rd a n c e w ith sta te la w , red re ss a b le b ysta te ju d icia l p ro c e d u re s,” a re n o t “s tate a c t s v i o l a t i v e o f

t h e F e d e r a l Co n s t i tu t i o n ” )
. A per se rul e of r eas onabl enes s w oul d i nappr opr i at el yenl i s tfede r al cour t s i n t he e n f o rc e m e n t o f

s ta te ru le s o f

c ri m in a l a n d ju d ic ia l p ro c e d u re . A ppl i cat i on of a per se rul e coul d al s o l ead t o t he cr eat i on o f d iffe ren t st an d ard s g o v ern ing arrests m ad e b yp ea ce o ff icers o f d i f f e r e n ts t a t e s f

o rt h e s a m e f

e d e r a l o f f e n s e . C o n c e i v a b l y, fi ftydi ffe r entcons t i tut i onal s t andar ds of arr es t , eac h one d icta ted b ya re sp e c tiv e sta te’ s p o sitiv e a n d d e c isio n a l law , co u ld re su lt. W h a t w o u ld b e re a so n a b le a n d c o n stitu tio n a l in o n e sta te9 c o u ld b e u n re a s o n a b le a n d u n c o n s titu tio n a l in a n o th e r. M e a n w h ile, f

e d e ra l co u rts o f

a p p e a ls w o u ld b e c o m p e lled to r ecogni ze— and, i ndeed, t o perpetuat e— s uch di s par i t i es among t he s t at es and t err i t or i es w i t hi n t hei rj ur i s di ct i ons . I f, for i ns t ance , w e w er e t o uphol d t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s appl i cat i on of a per se rule h ere , w e m igh t nev erthe less co n clud e, i n so m e f u ture c a se , tha t an o th e rw ise id e n tica l ar re st o c c u rrin g in N e w Je rse yis r eas onabl e and c ons t i tut i onal
. Such a pat chw or k of fe der al cons t i tut i onal s t andar ds , ar i s i ng as i tw er e fr om t he i ndi vi dual leg isla tiv e e n a c tm e n ts o f th e v a rio u s s tate s a n d ter rito rie s, is in c o n s is te n t w ith o u r s in g le f e d e ra l c o n s titu tio n . See M ar t i n v. H unt er ’s Les s ee , 14 U
. S. ( 1W heat
. ) 304, 347- 48 ( 1816) ( not i ng “the i m por t ance , and eve n nece s s i t yof u n ifo rm ity of dec i s i ons t hr oughoutt he w hol e U ni t ed St at es , upon al l s ubj ect s w i t hi n t he p u rv ie w o f

th e c o n s titu tio n ” ). M or eover , a per se rul e coul d w el l cr eat e di s par i t yi n t he cons t i tut i onal i t yof arr es t s per for m ed bys t at e and f eder al o ff icers f o r th e sa m e o ff

en se w ith in the sam e state o r t errit o ry . It i s eas yt o i m agi ne a s cena r i o i n w hi ch off i cer s of the V I PD and o f f ice rs o f th e IC E , w o rk in g o n a jo in t law -e n f o rc e m e n t d e tail, s i m ul t aneous l yappr oach a gr oup of s us pect ed i l l egal al i ens underci r cumst ance s s i m i l art o t hos e pr es ent ed her e. A ct i ng on w hatt heybel i eve t o be pr obabl e ca us e, a V I PD offi cerand an IC E o ff icer m ak e sim u lt an eo u s, w arran tl ess a rrests. If w e w ere t o appl ya per se rul e, w e w oul d l i kel ybe compel l ed t o fi nd t hat t he arr es tm ade byt he V I PD offi cerw as unr eas onabl e per se and , t herefore, un con st i tuti on al , w hereas the ident i cal arr est m ade byt he I C E offi cerw as r eas onabl e and c ons t i tut i onal
. T he Four t h A m endment does notperm i t , m uch l es s r equi r e, anys uch th in g . B yengr aft i ng t err i t or i al pr ocedur al r equi r ement s ont o t he fede r al cons t i tut i onal s t andar ds governi ng s ei zur e, t he D i s t r i ct C our tw entbey ond s i m pl ydet erm i ni ng t he r eas onabl enes s of L a v ill e ’s a rre st. R a th e r, th e C o u rt e f f e c tiv e lyre q u ire d S a n to s to be ce r t ai n t hata mi s demeanorhad bee n comm i t t ed, byvi r tue of havi ng w i t nes s ed i t s comm i s s i on, and t o ens ur e thatconvi ct i on w as pos s i bl e. A s i gni fi cantbodyof ca s el aw m akes cl earw hy a n ysu c h re q u ire m e n ts s im p lyc a n n o t b e , an d w h ya F o u rth10 A m endment det er m i nat i on cannottur n on t he exi genci es of the l aw of a pa r t i cul ars t at e ort err i t or yoran off i cer ’ s know l edge of t he el ement s of a pa r t i cul aroffe ns e and w hethereac h el ement has been s at i s fi ed. “The t es ti s one of f eder al l aw , nei t her enl ar ged byw hatone s t at e mayhave c ount enanc ed nor di m i ni s hed byw hatanotherm ayhave c ol or abl ys uppr es s ed. ” E lki ns v. U

ni t ed Stat es , 364 U
. S. 206, 223- 24 ( 1960)
. A s t he Supr eme C our temphasi zed i n D r aperv. U ni t ed Stat es , t here i s a “‘ di ffe r ence betw een w hati s r equi r ed t o pr ove gui l ti n a cr i m i nal cas e and w hati s r equi r ed t o s how pr obabl e ca us e forarr es tor s ear ch. ’ ” 358 U
. S. 307, 311- 12 ( 1959) ( quot i ng B r i negarv. U ni t ed Stat es , 338 U
. S. 160, 173 ( 1949) )
. A nd, as J udge L earned H and r ecogni zed mor e than s i xt yy ear s ago, t he
“‘ r eas onabl e ca us e’ nece s s aryt o s uppor tan arr es tcannot demand t he s ame str i ctnes s of pr oof as t he ac cus ed’ s gui l tupon a t r i a l , u n l e s s t h e p o we r s o f p e a c e o f f i c e r s a r e t o b e s o c u td o wn t hatt heycannotpos s i bl yper for m t hei rdut i es . ” U ni t ed Stat es v. Hei tner , 149 F. 2d 105, 106 ( 2d C i r . 1945) ( quot ed i n D r aper , 3 5 8 U .S . at 3 1 2 n .4 ); s ee als o G r aham v. C onnor , 490 U
. S. 386, 396 ( 1989) ( s t at i ng t hati n det erm i ni ng w hetherus e of f or ce vi ol at es t he Four t h A m endment , “‘ r eas onabl enes s ’
. . . m us tbe j udged fr om t he per s pect i ve of a r eas onabl e off i ceron t he s cene , ra th e r t h a n w ith th e 2 0 /2 0 v is io n o f h in d s ig h t” ). A nd i ti s r eas onabl enes s t hati s t he ce nt r al i nqui r yunder th e F o u rt h A m e n d m e n t. Un i t e d S t a t e s v . Wi l l i a ms , 417 F. 3d 3 7 3 , 3 7 6 ( 3 d C i r . 2 0 0 5 )
. “ [ S ] u f f i c i e n tp r o b a b i l i t y, n o tc e r t a i n t y, is th e to u c h sto n e o f

re a so n a b len e ss u n d e r th e F o u rth A m endment
. ” Hill

v . C a lif o rn ia , 4 0 1 U .S . 7 9 7 , 8 0 4 (1 9 7 1 ); s ee al s o Locke v

. U

ni t ed Stat es , 11 U
. S. ( 7 C r anch) 339, 348 ( 1813) ( r ecogni zi ng t hatpr obabl e ca us e “means l es s t han evi dence w h ich w o u ld ju stif

yc o n d e m n a tio n ” ). P ro b a b le c a u se e x ists w heneve rr eas onabl yt rus t w or t hyi nfor m at i on orci r cumst ance s w i t hi n an arr es t i ng offi cer ’ s know l edge a r e s uffi ci entt o w arr ant a per s on of r eas onabl e ca ut i on t o concl ude thatan off ens e has b e e n o r i s b e in g c o m m itte d b yth e p e rs o n b e in g a rr e s te d
. D r aper , 3 5 8 U .S . at 3 1 3 ; M yers , 3 0 8 F .3 d a t 2 5 5
.11 C . L av i l l e’s A rrest W as S u p p orted b y P rob ab l e C au se W e m u st, there fo re, de term ine w h ethe r O ff icer S an tos’s w arr ant l es s arr es ts at i s fi ed the Four t h A m endment ’ s r equi r ement th a t th e a rre st b e re a so n a b le. R e a so n a b le s u sp icio n a n d p ro b a b le caus e ar e det er m i ned w i t h r efe r ence t o t he fa ct s and ci r cumst ance s w i t hi n t he off i cer ’ s know l edge a tt he t i m e of the in v e stig a tiv e sto p o r a rre st. D evenp eck v. A l f ord , 543 U
. S. 146, 1 5 2 (2 0 0 4 ); Fl or i da v . J

. L. , 529 U
. S. 266, 271 ( 2000)
. T he arr est i ng off

i cer need n ot have co ntem plat ed the speci fi c off ense forw hi ch the def

endantul t i m at el yw i l l be cha r ged. T he appr opr i at e i nqui r y , r ather , i s w hethert he fa ct s and ci r cumst ance s w i t hi n t he off i cer ’ s know l edge a tt he t i m e of a n in v e s tig a tiv e s to p o r a rr e s t o b je c tiv e ly ju s tif

yth a t a c tio n . D eve npeck , 5 4 3 U .S . a t 1 5 3
. S a n to s w e n t to th e w h a rf b e tw e e n 7 a n d 8 :0 0 A .M . to i nves t i gat e a r epor t , phoned i n bySperber , t hata boathad run agr ound i n C hr i s t i ans t ed harborand i l l egal al i ens w er e comi ng as hor e. W hen he a r r i ved att he w har f, Sant os obs erved fi r s t hand t hatt her e w as i n fac ta boats t r anded i n t he harborw i t h a number o f p eo p le st il l on b o ard
. H e a lso m et fa ce -t o -fa ce w ith S p erb er, w ho poi nt ed outa gr oup of fouri ndi vi dual s s i t t i ng nearbyon t he boar dw al k. T hes e i ndi vi dual s i dent i fi ed themsel ves t o Sant os as C u b an s w h o “c am e into sh o re” o ff the b o at (A p p . v o l. II at 38 ), an d , as th e D istri ct C o u rtfo u n d , “ind icated that o ther a li en s w ere i n t he vi ci ni t y ” ( A pp. vol
. I at6)
. Sperbers epar at el yi nfor m ed Sant os t hatm or e s us pect ed al i ens w er e “a r ound t he corner ” and o f f e re d to p o in t th e m o u t. (A p p . v o l. II at 3 9 .) A c tin g o n th is i nfor m at i on, Sant os and hi s fel l ow offi cer s w al ked dow n t he boar dw al k and ar ound t he corner , and, t her e, found Lavi l l e and t w o compani ons s i t t i ng on a benc h. T aking t hese facts t og et her w i t h all reas on able i nferences, se e T e rr y v . O h io , 392 U
. S. 1, 27 ( 1968) , w e fi nd t hatbyt he t i m e Sant os appr oache d L avi l l e and hi s compani ons on t he b o a rd w a lk , h e h a d , at th e v e rylea st, re a so n a b le s u sp icio n to bel i eve thatcr i m i nal act i vi t yw as afoot
. I f no furt her c irc u m sta n c e s h a d e x iste d , S a n to s w o u ld h a v e b e e n ju stif ied in p e rf o rm in g a n in v e s tig a tiv e s to p o f L a v ille a n d h is c o m p a n io n s .12 A s itso h ap p en ed , h o w ev er, sub seq u en t eve n ts el ev ated S an tos’s re a so n a b le s u sp icio n to th e lev e l o f p ro b a b le c a u se f

o r a n a rre st. W hen Lavi l l e and hi s compani ons s pot t ed the appr oachi ng pol i ce of

fi cer s , t heyi m m edi at el y“s t ood up and sta rte d w a lk in g a w a yre a llyf a st.” (A p p . v o l. II at 3 9 .) T h e ir a c tio n s d id n o t ev id e n c e a n in ten t sim p lyto g o a b o u t th e ir b u s in e s s , s ee Fl or i da v. R oyer , 4 6 0 U
. S
. 4 9 1 , 4 9 7 -98 (19 8 3 ); ra th e r, th e m e n su d d e n ly , an d d e lib e ra tely , fle d . T h e ra p id w al ki ng s oon gave w ayt o headl ong fl i ght : Sant os hear d a fe l l ow offi cerexcl ai m of one of t he s us pect s , “he’ s runni ng, ” and p e rs o n a lly o b s e rv e d L a v ille in o p e n f lig h t. ( A p p . v o l. I a t 6 -7 .) Itis “w ell estab li sh ed that w h ere p o li ce o ff icers r eas onabl ys us pectt hatan i ndi vi dual m aybe enga ged i n cr i m i nal act i vi t y , and the i ndi vi dual del i ber at el yt akes fl i ghtw hen the o f f ice rs a ttem p t to sto p a n d q u e stio n h im , the o f f ice rs g e n e ra lly n o lo n g e r h a v e m e re re a so n a b le s u sp icio n , b u t p ro b a b le c a u se to arr es t
. ” U

ni t ed Stat es v. Shar

pe , 470 U
. S. 675, 705 ( 1985) (B re n n a n , J., d iss e n tin g ); see al so P et ers v. N

ew Y ork , deci ded w i t h Sibron v. N

ew Y ork , 392 U
. S. 40, 66- 67 ( 1968) ( “[D ] el i ber at el yfur t i ve ac t i ons and fl i ghtatt he appr oach of s t r anger s orl aw offi cer s ar e s t r ong i ndi ci a of m ens r ea , and w hen coupl ed w i t h s peci fi c know l edge on the partof the off i cer r el at i ng t he s us pectt o t he evi dence of cr i m e, t heyar e pr oper f a c to rs to b e c o n sid e re d in th e d e c isio n to m a k e a n a rre st.” ); 2 W ayne R
. L aFave, S e a rc h a n d S e izu re : A T

re a tise o n th e Fo u rth A m e n dm e n t § 3
. 6 (4t h ed
. 20 07 ) ( “[I] f t here al readyexis t s a s i gni fi cantdegr ee of

s us pi ci on conce r ni ng a part i cul arper s on

. . . , t he fl i ghtof thati ndi vi dual upon t he appr oach of t he pol i ce m aybe t aken i nt o acc ountand mayw el l el evat e the pr e- exi s t i ng s us pi ci on up t o t he r equi s i t e Four t h A m endmentl evel of pr obabl e ca us e. ” ( i nt ernal footnot es om i t t ed) )
. “H eadl ong fli g h t— w h ere v er ito cc u rs— is th e c o n su m m ate a ct of ev asio n : I t is n o t n e c e ss a rilyin d ica tiv e o f w ro n g d o in g , b u t itis c e rta in ly s ugges t i ve of s uch. ” I

l l i nois v. W

ar dl ow , 528 U
. S. 119, 124 ( 2000)
. T hus , w hen Lavi l l e fl ed att he s i ghtof the appr oachi ng o f f ice rs, S a n to s n o lo n g e r m e re lyh a d re a so n a b le s u sp icio n to b e liev e th a t cr im in a l ac tiv ityw a s a f o o t; h e n o w h a d p ro b a b le caus e t o m ake a n arr es t
. W e fi nd t hat , gi ven the t ot al i t yof the13 c irc u m sta n c e s, S a n to s’s a rre st o f L a v ill e w a s re a so n a b le a n d d id n o t v io late th e F o u rth A m e n d m e n t. D. La v i l l e ’ s Cu s t o d i a l S t a t e me n t t o I CE H avi ng err oneous l yfound thatL avi l l e’ s arr es tw as unl aw ful and thathi s s t at ement s t o Sant os m us tbe s uppr es s ed, t he D i s t r i ctC our tnextcons i der ed the s t at ementL avi l l e made w hi l e i n I C E cus t ody
. T he D i s t r i ctC our tdet erm i ned thata “ne w arr es t ” occ ur r ed w hen the V I PD t r ans ferr ed Lavi l l e i nt o t he cus t odyof I C E
. Fi ndi ng t hatt he governm entfai l ed t o m ake a n i ndepende nts how i ng of pr obabl e ca us e forthi s new arr es t , t he Di s t r i c tCo u r to r d e r e d t h a tLa v i l l e ’ s c u s t o d i a l s t a t e me n tt o I CE al s o be s uppr es s ed. If L a v ill e ’s a rre st h a d b e e n u n re a so n a b le u n d e r th e F o u rth A m e n d m e n t, th e n th e D istric t C o u rt m a yh a v e b e e n c o rre c t to s uppr es s hi s cus t odi al s t at ementt o I C E as frui tof the poi s onous tr e e . See W

ong Sun v. U

ni t ed Stat es , 371 U
. S. 471, 484- 86 (1963 ). W e need no tdecide t his qu est i on , ho w ever, becau se L avi l l e’ s arr es tw as r eas onabl e. W her e hi s i ni t i al arr es tby t e r r i t o r i a l a u t h o r i t i e s d i d n o tv i o l a t e t h e F o u r t h Ame n d me n t , I CE w a s n o t re q u ire d to m a k e a n in d e p e n d e n t sh o w in g o f p ro b a b le ca u se b ef

o re a ssu m ing cu stod y . S u ch cu stod ial tr an sfe rs are re la tiv e ly co m m o n in th e im m ig ra tio n c o n te x t, s ee, e. g. , U ni t ed St at es v. B ow l ey , 4 3 5 F .3 d 4 2 6 , 4 2 8 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 6 ); Y ang v. Maugans , 68 F. 3d 1540, 1544 ( 3d C i r . 1995) , and none of t he au tho ri ti es c it ed b ythe D istri ct C o u rt , an d n o n e o f w h ich w e a re aw ar e, even i m pl i es t hata cus t odi al t r ans fercons t i tut es a “ne w a rr e s t” re q u ir in g a s e p a ra te s h o w in g o f p ro b a b le c a u s e . See, e. g. , Ca l i f o r n i a v . Ho da r i D. , 499 U
. S. 621, 624- 28 ( 1991) ( di s cus s i ng w hen a Four t h A m endment“s ei zur e” oc cur s , butnot d isc u ss in g a tra n sf

e r o f c u sto d y ); P ayton v. N

ew Y ork , 44 5 U. S. 573, 590 ( 1980) ( i nvol vi ng w arr ant l es s entr yof a home for p u rp o se s o f

m a k in g f

e lo n ya rre st); Shar r arv. Fel s i ng , 128 F. 3d 8 1 0 , 8 1 9 -2 0 (3 d C ir. 1 9 9 7 ) (s a m e ); U ni t ed Stat es v. Sanchez , 509 F .2 d 8 8 6 , 8 8 9 (6 th C ir. 1 9 7 5 ) (in v o lv in g th e F o u rth A m e n d m e n t’ s p a rt ic u la ri ty re q u ir e m e n t f o r s e a rc h w a rr a n ts ). W e ther efor e fi nd t hatL avi l l e’ s t r ans feri nt o I C E cus t odyw as n o t a “ n e w a rre st” re q u irin g a n in d e p e n d e n t sh o w in g o f p ro b a b le14 ca u se, an d that the D istri ct C o u rterred in su p p ressing L av il le’s s u b s e q u e n ts t a t e me n tt o I CE. III . I n det er m i ni ng w hetheran arr es ti s r eas onabl e undert he Four t h A m endment , cour t s m us tneverl os e s i ghtof the f u n d a m e n tal p rin c ip le th a t “‘ re a so n a b le s u sp icio n ’ a n d ‘p ro b a b le caus e’
. . . ar e comm ons ens e, nont echni cal conce pt i ons t hatdeal w i t h ‘ t he fa ctual and pr act i cal cons i der at i ons of eve r y dayl i fe on w hi ch r eas onabl e and prudentm en, notl egal t echni ci ans , act
. ’ ” O r nelas v. U

ni t ed Stat es , 5 1 7 U. S
. 6 9 0 , 6 9 5 ( 1 9 9 6 ) ( s o me i nt ernal quot at i on m arks om i t t ed) ( quot i ng I l l i nois v. G at es , 462 U .S . 2 1 3 , 2 3 1 (1 9 8 3 )); s ee al s o Shar r ar , 128 F. 3d at818 ( s t at i ng t hatcour t s m us t“us e a ‘ comm on s ens e’ appr oach t o t he i s s ue of p ro b a b le c a u se ” ). It is n o t co n sis ten t w ith th is p rin c ip le to det er m i ne the r eas onabl enes s of an a r r es tbas ed s ol el yupon t he a rr e s tin g o f

f ic e r’ s te c h n ic a l c o m p lia n c e w ith s ta te o r l o c a l la w . A ccordi ng l y , w e ho l d thatt he u nlaw fulness of an arr est u n d e r sta te o r lo c a l law d o e s n o t m a k e th e a rre st u n re a so n a b le per se un der t he F ou rth A m end m ent; atm ost , t he u nlaw fulness is a f a c to r f o r f e d e ra l co u rts to c o n sid e r in e v a lu a tin g th e to tality of the ci r cumst ance s s ur r oundi ng t he arr es t
. B eca us e the D i s t r i ct C ou rterr on eou sl yheld that O ffi cer San t os’s w arr antl ess arres t w as unr eas onabl e per se and bec aus e i terr oneous l yhel d t hat L avi l l e’ s t r ans fert o I C E cus t odyr equi r ed a s epar at e s how i ng of pr obabl e ca us e, w e w i l l r ever s e the D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s or der s uppr es s i ng L avi l l e’ s pos t
- arr es ts t at ement s and r emand for f u rt h e r p ro c e e d in g s c o n s is te n t w ith th is O p in io n .15 

### Mc Ke e , Conc urri ng Ijo i n Jud geBarry ’ s ana l y s i s andop i ni on . Ho we ve r , two concerns c ausem e t o w ri teseparate ly . Fir st , Iam concerned that the c e rt i fi c at i on the Gove rnm e nt fi l e d pur s uant

t o 18 U. S. C. § 3731 m ay

be di s i nge nuous . Se c ond, Ithi nk thi s c a s e c an be de c i de d e nt i r e l y

on the ba s i s of our

de c i s i on i n Y

an g v. Maugans , 68 F. 3d 1540 ( 3d Ci r . 1995)
. Howe ve r , gi ve n the a ppar e nt c onfus i on ari s i ng fr om

our de c i s i on i n Un ited Statesv. M yers , 308 F. 3d 251 ( 3d Ci r . 2002) , Ijoi n Judge Barry i n t aki ng this op po rt

un it y to cl arify our holding ther e. I . TheGove r nm e nt ’ s Ce r t i fi c at i on. 18 U.S.C. § 3 73 1 all ow s the Go vernm ent an interlocutory ap p eal o f ano rd er sup p ressin g ev id en ce if , an do n ly if , “ t he U ni t ed St at es at t or neycert i fi es t o t he di s t r i ctcour tt hatt he a p p e a l is n o t tak e n f

o r p u rp o se o f

d e lay an d th a t th e e v id e n c e is a s ubs t ant i al pr oof of a fac tm at er i al i n t he pr ocee di ng. ” 18 U .S .C . § 3 7 3 1 , ¶ 2 . T h e G o v e rn m e n t cle a rlyd id n o t tak e th is appea l forpurpos es of del ay , butI am skept i cal of the cl ai m t hat t he evi dence t he D i s t r i ctC our ts uppr es s ed w as “s ubs t ant i al proof of a f actm at eri al ” t o the charges againstL avil l e, as i tm ust b e if w e a re to h av e jurisdicti o n o v er a n interl o cu toryo rde r. L avi l l e w as char ged w i t h i l l egal l ybr i ngi ng al i ens i nt o t he U ni t ed St at es i n vi ol at i on of 8 U
. S. C
. § 1324( a) ( 1) ( A ) ( I ) , doi ng so fo r fina n cial ga in in v iolati o n o f 8 U
. S
. C
. § 1 3 2 4 (a)(2)(B )(i i) , a n d c o n s p ir in g to d o s o in v io la tio n o f 8 U .S .C . § 1324( a) ( 1) ( A ) ( v) ( I )
. A s t he maj or i tyexpl ai ns , aft erhe w as appr ehende d byO ffi cerSant os , L avi l l e s ai d t hathe w as fr om D om i ni ca, and thathe had be en a c r ew m emberon t he s t r anded boat
. T he dayaft erhe w as appr ehende d, Sant os w as tur ned over t o agent s fr om I m m i gr at i on C us t om s and Enfor cement , and he r epea t ed thos e s t at ement s t o t hem. H e adde d onl yt hathe thought h e h a d la n d e d o n T o rt o la , a n is la n d in th e B ri tis h V ir g in Is la n d s . T hos e ar e the s t at ement s t hatt he D i s t r i ctC our ts uppr es s ed, and t hati s t he evi dence t hatpurpor t edl ycons t i tut es “s ubs t ant i al p ro o f o f a m a te ri a l f

a c t” in L a v ille ’s p ro s e c u tio n . 8 U .S .C . § 1 3 2 4 m a k e s it a c rim e f o r a n y o n e to k n o w in g ly “br i ng . . . [an a l i en] t o t he U ni t ed St at es . . . ata pl ace ot hert han a d e s ig n a te d p o rt o f

e n tr y. . . .” 8 U .S .C . § 1 3 2 4 (a )( 1 )( A )( I)
. T he var i ous s ubs ect i ons L avi l l e w as char ged w i t h vi ol at i ng s peci fypenal t i es forbr i ngi ng al i ens i nt o t he U ni t ed St at es , doi ngFor exampl e, i ti s conce i vabl e thatt he C uban w i t nes s es 3 w ere eit h er u n av ail ab le or u n co o p era ti v e. In tha t eve n t, L av il le’s admi s s i on t hathe oper at ed the boatw oul d become cruci al t o t he G o v e rn m e n t’s p ro o f. H o w e v e r, n o th in g o n th is re c o rd su g g e sts t hati s t he ca s e, and the G overnm entoffe r ed no s uch expl anat i on w h e n q u e rie d a b o u t th e c e rtific a tio n d u rin g o ra l ar g u m e n t. 16 s o forfi nanci al gai n, orcons pi r i ng t o do s o. T he ci t i zens hi p or r es i dence of the per s on w ho i l l egal l ybr i ngs al i ens i nt o t he U ni t ed St at es i s i r r el evant
. A U ni t ed St at es ci t i zen c an be convi ct ed of i l l egal l ybr i ngi ng al i ens i nt o t he U ni t ed St at es ( and t he r el at ed off

ens es ) t he s ame as a l egal perm anentr es i dentoran i l l egal al i en. T he G overnm entneed onl ypr ove thata def endant br oughti l l egal al i ens i nt o t he U ni t ed St at es ata l ocat i on ot her t han “a desi gn at ed p ortof en t ry , ” and t hat he/ she did so know i ngl y . I t her efor e fa i l t o s ee how L avi l l e’ s ci t i zens hi p can a c q u ire th e m a ter ialityth e G o v e rn m e n t h a s c laim e d b yf ili n g th is ap p ea l and the c o n co m it an t certi fica ti o n u n d er § 3 7 3 1
. L av il le’s sta tem e n t th a t h e w a s a c re w m e m b e r is re lev a n t b e c a u se it es t abl i s hes t hathe ac tual l yfac i l i t at ed the pas s enger s ’ i l l egal a rriv a l in to th e U n ited S tate s a n d c re a tes a n in f e re n c e th a t h e d id s o forfi nanci al gai n ( as a pai d cr ew m ember )
. H ow ever , t he G ov ernm ent di d n ot need h i s post -arres tst at em ents t o est abli sh t hathe w as a cr ew m ember
. A s J udge B arr ynot es , s ever al of the p asse n g ers ide n ti fied L av il le an d a c o -de fe n d an t as t h e b o at’s o p e ra to rs. T h e p o st-a rre st s tate m e n ts th a t ar e th e su b jec t o f th is i nt er l ocut or yappea l m ayfl us h outa bi tof det ai l and pr ovi de s om e col or ful backgr ound, butt heyar e ce r t ai nl ynot“s ubs t ant i al pr oof of a fac tm at er i al i n t he pr ocee di ng. ” I ther efor e doubtt hat t he § 37 31 cert i fi cat i on w as afforded t he co nsi derat i on C on gress in ten d e d . R a th e r, ita p p e a rs to h a v e b e e n re f lex iv e lyf

iled in o rd e r t o c h a lle n g e a ru lin g th e G o v e rn m e n t d is a g re e d w ith
. I r eal i ze thatw e ar e noti n a pos i t i on t o under s t and al l of t he dynami cs of thi s pr os ecut i on, and thatt her e maybe an ex p lana ti o n fo r th e G o v ern m en t’ s ce rt ify ing that L av il le’s appar ent l ys uper fl uous s t at ement s ar e mat er i al t o hi s pr os ecut i on t hati s notevi denton appea l
. H ow ever , t he r ecor d cert ai nl ydoes nots ugges tanys uch expl anat i on, and the G overnm entw as not a b le to p ro v id e o n e w h e n a sk e d d u rin g o ra l ar g u m e n t. 35 V
. I
. C
. § 3562 p rov ides: “A peac e off i cerm aym ake a n 4 arr es ti n obedi ence t o a w arr antdel i ver ed t o hi m , orm ay , w i t hout a w arr ant , arr es ta per s on – ( 1) fora p u b li c offe ns e comm i t t ed or at t empt ed i n hi s pr es ence . ” 17 I al s o r eal i ze thatw e do notl ook behi nd t he U ni t ed St at es A t t o r n e y’ s c e r t i f

i c a t i o n u n d e r§ 3 7 3 1 , n o rq u e s t i o n i t s v e r a c i t y. See G ov’ tof

V

. I

. v. H odge , 359 F. 3d 312, 325 ( 3d C i r . 2004) ( “The U ni t ed St at es A t t or ney ’ s w or d i s enough; t he r evi ew i ng c o u rt d o e s n o t c o n s id e r t h e tru th o f th e c e rt if

ic a tio n .” ). N evert hel es s , I t hi nk i ti s cl eart hatt he C ongr es s di d noti nt end t he ce r t i fi cat i on t o funct i on onl yas a pr ocedur al cal i s t heni c that t he G overnm entcan e m pl oyw heneve ri tdi s agr ees w i t h t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s s uppr es s i on rul i ng. I hope thatt he G overnm ent has notr egar ded i tas s uch her e. II. 

### T h eA r r e s tW a s L e g a lE v e n U n d e rV i r g i n I s l a n d s L a w. A s J udge B arr yexpl ai ns , t he D i s t r i ctC our tconcl uded th a t O f f ice r S a n to s d id n o t h a v e p ro b a b le c a u se to a rre st L a v ill e fors m uggl i ng al i ens . T he courtbel i eved thatSant os had, at m os t , pr obabl e ca us e t o bel i eve Lavi l l e had e nt er ed the U ni t ed S ta te s ille g a lly in v io la tio n o f 8 U .S .C . § 1 3 2 5
. 

### U n d er V irg in Islan d s law , lo cal lawen f o rcem ent o f

f icers h av e auth o rity

to arrest f o r v io latio n s o f

f ed eral immig ratio nlaw s. S ee, e.g., U n ited Sta tes v. S

a n ta n a -G a rcia , 2 6 4 F .3 d1 1 8 8 , 1 1 9 3 -9 4 (1 0 th C ir. 2 0 0 1 ). N ev erthe less, the c o u rtsu p p resse d L av il le’s st at em ents becau se i l l egal ent ryi nto the U nit ed S t at es i s a m is d e m e a n o r. U ndert he l aw of the V i r gi n I s l ands , O ffi cer Sant os coul d notm ake a w arr ant l es s arr es tfora mi s demeanor unl es s t he off

ens e w as comm i t t ed i n hi s pr es ence . T he D i s t r i ct 4 C our terr oneous l yconcl uded thatt hatr equi r ementgoverned the a d m is s ib ility o f

th e s u p p re s s e d e v id e n c e . “The defi ni t i on of ‘ entr y ’ as appl i ed forvar i ous purpos es in o u r i m m ig ra tio n la w s w a s e v o lv e d ju d ic ia lly . . .” , R osenb erg v . F leu ti , 3 7 4 U .S . 4 4 9 , 4 5 3 (1 9 6 3 ). 

### As us e d i n i mmi gr at i on law, entr y re qu ir es m ore than p hy si ca l pre se nce i n the Un it ed S tates; it also requ ires f

reed o m f ro m o f f icial restraint. Un ited States v . Pac he c o-Me dina , 2 1 2 F .3 d1 1 6 2 , 1 1 6 4 (9 thC ir. 2 0 0 0 ). T h e requ irem ent th at th e alienb e f ree f ro m o f f icial restraint to a c c o mp l i s hane ntry

i nt o th e U n i t e dS t at e s a

p p l i e s t o th e c ri meR es ol ut i on of t hat i s s ue det erm i ned the ki nd of hea r i ng t he 5 al i ens w er e ent i t led t o. A n al i en w ho has “ent er ed” the U ni t ed St at es i s ent i t l ed t o a r emoval pr ocee di ng, w hi l e an al i en w ho has n o t “e n tered ” can b e refu sed ad m issi o n thro u g h a su m m ary excl us i on pr ocee di ng. I n a r emoval pr ocee di ng, t he al i en r ece i ves m anyadvant ages n o t avai l abl e t o an al i en i n an exc l us i on pr ocee di ng, i ncl udi ng advanc e not i ce of the cha r ges , appea l t o an a p p e lla te c o u rt , a n d th e ri g h t to a c o u n tr yo f d e s ig n a tio n . Y

ang , 68 F. 3d at1547. 18 

### of i l l e ga le ntr

y i n vi ol at i on of 8 U. S. C. § 1325, a s we l la s the crim e o f illeg al re-en try

un d er 8 U .S .C . § 1 3 2 6
. See Unite d States v . Vas i latos , 209 F.2d19 5, 19 7 (3dCir. 19 54 ) ( il le gal r eentry); Un ited Statesv. Go nzalez-Torres , 3 0 9 F .3 d5 9 4 , 5 9 8 (9 th C ir. 2 0 0 2 ) (illeg al entry

an dilleg al re-en try); Pac he c o-Me dina , 2 1 2 F .3 dat 1 1 6 4 -6 5 (illeg al re-en try); U n ited Sta tes v. A ngelesM a sco te , 206 F.3d52 9, 53 1 (5th C ir . 200 0) (i ll egalre -e ntry ). I n Y ang v . Maugans , 68 F. 3d15 40 ( 3dCir . 19 95 ) , we ha d t o de t e rmi ne i f an e ntry ha d be e n a c c om

pl i s he d by

a l i e ns on a sm u g g lin g sh ip th at ranag ro un do f f th e co ast o f

N ewY o rk
. S o m e o f th e 3 0 0 p assen g ers o nth at sh ip m an ag edto sw im ash o re b ef

o re b ein g ap p reh en d ed , an dw e h adto d ecid e if th eir phy s i c a lpr e s e nc e i n Ne w York e ffe c t uat e d an e ntry

i nt o the Uni t e d St at e s wi thi n the m e ani ng of the n- s e c t i on 101 of the Im migrati onand N ationali ti es Act. Th e polic e had respo nd ed 5 

### im m ediate ly and they had cordo ned o ff

the are a of the beach whe r e the a l i e ns ha d l ande d. None of the a l i e ns e ve r l e ft the be a c h ar e a , and the y

we r e a l larr e s t e d wi thi n thi rty mi nut e s of th eir arriv al. Quot i ng fr om

the BI A’ s de c i s i on i n Ma tte r of G- , Int. D ec. 3 2 1 5 , at 5 -7 (B IA1 9 9 3 ), w e exp lain edth at anentry into the Unite d S tate s r equire s: “‘ (1) c ross ing into the te rrit oria l li mit s of the Un it ed Stat es , i .e ., ph y si ca l pre se nce; (2)( a) i ns pe c t i on and a dmi s s i on by an i mmi gr at i on offi c e r , or (b) ac tualand intenti on alevas ion o f inspection at the neare st entr y po int; and (3) freedom

from of fici alre stra int. ’”68 F.3dat 15 45 . W e hel d that the al ie ns never e nter ed the Unite d S tate s beca use they never s atis fied the third re qu ir em ent; they were ne ve r fr e e fr om

offi c i a lr e s tr a i nt
. W e e xpl a i ne d:A s i s evi dentfr om J udge B arr y ’ s anal y s i s , m ydi s cus s i on 6 i n no w aysu gges t s t hatt he l egal i t yof Lavi l l e’ s arr es ttur ns on w hethera m i sdem eano r w as com m i t t ed in O f f ice r Santos’ 19 

### Wh enanalienattem

p ts to enter th e U n itedS tates, the m e r e fa c t

that he or s he m ay have e lude d the g az e o f l awe n f o r c e me nt f o r ab ri e f p e ri o do f t i me af ter h av in g co m e up o nU n itedS tates territo ry is i ns uffi c i e nt , i n and of i t s e l f, t o e s t abl i s h fr e e dom f ro m o f f icial restraint. I d. at 1550. Thus , i n Y

ang as here , non e of the defend ants was ev er f ree f ro m o f f icial restraint o n ce th ey

to u ch edsh o re. No ne of the petitioners ever

le ft the bea ch ar ea , wh ichw as teemin g w ithlawen f o rcem ent activ ity so o naf ter th e [ th e sm

u g g lin g v essel] ranag ro un d
. No r wer e any

of the petitioners free to . . . go at large andmix with the gener alpo pu lati on . Far from indistingu is hably

mixing w it

h the general po pu lati on , petitioners ei ther wereapprehended sh o rtly af ter co min g ash o re, o r w ere b ro u g h t into cust ody as a r es ult of imm ediateand intenselaw e nfor c e m e nt

e ffort s . W e the r e for e c onc lude [d] that the petitioners werenever freefrom of fici al restraint. Id

. (E llip sis ino rig in al, intern al citatio no mitted ). Althou ghthe polic e r es po nse her e was no t a s i ntenseas the r e s pons e i n Y

ang , I d o n o t b eliev e th at th e d if f eren ce rises to th e lev el o f

a leg al d istin ctio nf

o r p urp o ses o f

d etermin in g if L av ille h adm an ag edan“entry” un d er o ur immig ratio nlaw s. Lavill e was never freeto “go at l arge and m ix with the gener al p o p u latio n ,” h e w as “ap p reh en d edsh o rtly af ter co min g ash o re,” and he wa s “ br ought

i nt o c us t ody

a s ar e s ul t

of i mm e di at e and [r e l at i ve l y] i nt e ns e l aw e nfor c e m e nt e ffort s . ” Gi ve n the hol di ng i n Y ang , the Di s tri c t

Court s houl d have c onc lude d that the of fense of ill egalentr

y was c ommitte d in the pres enceof Of fice r S anto s; it clearly

w as. A cco rd in g ly , L av ille’s p o st-arrest s t at e m e nt s s houl d not

have be e n s uppr e s s e d. 6pr es ence . A s J udge B arr yexpl ai n s, that Four t h A m endment in q u irytu rn s o n w h e th e r O f f ic e r S a n to s h a d p ro b a b le c a u se to bel i eve thatL avi l l e w as comm i t t i ng a cr i m e. I ti s nott he fa ctt hat L avi l l e w as comm i t t i ng a mi s demeanori n t he off i cer ’ s pr es ence t hat val i dates t his arr est
. R at her, t he tot al i t yof the ci rcum st ances, i n c l u d i n g Off

i c e rSa n t o s ’ r e a s o n a b l e s u s p i c i o n whe n h e s aw L avi l l e, es t abl i s hes pr obabl e caus e t o arr es t as r equi r ed undert he Fourth A m endment
. T hatanal y s i s can notbe governed byl ocal l a w. I ti s , of cour s e, t rue t hat an ar r es t w hi ch vi ol at es t he Feder al

7 C ons t i tut i on i s nota l egal one notw i t hs t andi ng i t s l egal i t yunder s t at e l aw . I n t he por t i on of Ke r v . C a lif o rn ia , 3 7 4 U
. S
. 2 3 (19 6 3 ), 20 ST A PL E T O N , di s s ent i ng: I r ead ourdeci s i on i n U nited S t ates v. M

yers , 308 F. 3d 2 5 1 (3d C ir
. 2 0 0 2 ), in the sam e m an n er a s d id the D istri ct C o u rt and the part i es i n t hi s cas e. 

### I n M yers , we be gan our

ana l y s i s by

obs e rvi ng: “ The vali dity of an ar re st is dete rmined by

the l aw of

the s tatewh er e th e arrest o ccurred
. S

ee K er v. C a lifo rn ia , 374 U. S. 23, 37 ( 1963) (plur a l i ty

opi ni on)
. ” 308 F. 3d at

255. The c i t e d port i on of Ker read s as f

o llo w s: T h is C o urt, incases un d er th e F o urthA m en dm ent, h as lo n g reco g n izedth at th e law f u ln ess o f arrests for fe de r a loffe ns e s i s t o be de t e rmi ne d by r e fe r e nc e t o s t at e l aw i ns ofar a s i t i s not vi ol at i ve o f th e F ed eral C o n stitutio n . A fo rtio ri , the l awful ne s s of the s e arr e s t s by s t at e offi c e r s for state o f f en ses is to b e d etermin edb y C alif o rn ia l aw. Ker , 374 U.S. at

37 (c it ations om itte d). No one c ont e nde d i n M

yers that a mis dem eano r pre se nce r ul e wa s “ vi ol at i ve of the Fe de r a lCons t i t ut i on, ” and we we nt

7r efe r ence d bythe C our t , forexampl e, t he pl u rali t yopi ni on “ e x a m in e [ d ] [ a n ] a rre st to d e ter m in e w h e th e r, n o tw ith sta n d in g its l egal i t yunders t at e l aw , t he met hod o f en teri ng t he home m ay offe nd fede r al cons t i tut i onal s t andar ds of reas onabl enes s and t her efor e vi t i at e the l egal i t y of an ac company i ng s ear ch. ” I d. at38. A p p ly in g th e m isd e m e a n o r pr e se n c e ru le to d e ter m in e th e v a lid ity of a V i r gi n I s l ands arr es t , how ever , does not i nfr i nge on anyr i ght c re a ted b yth e F o u rth A m e n d m e n t. 21 

### on i n M yers to h o ldas f

o llo w s: U n d er P enn sylv an ia law , sim p le assau lt is a mis dem eano r. As no te d abo ve, Pennsylvania law gove rns the va l i di ty

of Mye r s ’ arr e s t
. The Penn sylvania

le gisl at ure has spec ific al ly

li mit ed th e auth o rity

o f p o lice o f f icers to m ak e w arrantless ar re st s for mis dem eano r off ense s. Anof

fice r m ay c onduc t awarr ant l e s s arr e s t

for ami s de m e anor onl y i f the offe ns e i s c ommi tt e d i n the pr e s e nc e of th e arrestin g o f

f icer o r wh ensp ecif

ically authoriz ed by

st at ute. Of fice r Azz ar ano arre st ed Myer s witho ut a war

rant. There fo re , Azz ar ano’s ar re st fo r s im ple a ss ault

is no t a utho ri ze d und er Penn sylvania

law unles s the re cord es ta blis hes that a sim p le assau lt o ccurredinh is p resen ce. M yers , 308 F.3dat

25 6 (ci tati on s omitte d). Ap plyi ngthi s l aw t o thefa c t s of M yers , we r e ve r s e d the d istrict co urt an dh eldth at it m u st g rant th e m o tio nto sup p ress b ecau se th e o f

f icer h adn o reaso n ab le g ro un dto b eliev e th at a s i m pl e a s s aul t

wa s oc c urri ng i n hi s pr e s e nc e . I n our c onc ludi ng p arag rap ho nth is issu e, w e summ arizedo ur h o ld in g as f o llo w s: Ba s e d upo n o ur

r e vi e w o f thi s r e c ord w e conclude that

a finding that

an as sa ult was “o n g o in g ” inth e o f

f icer’s p resen ce is clearly e rr one ous . W e the r e for e hol d that the gove rnm e nt fa i l e d t o s at i s fy

i t s bur de n of e s t abl i s hi ng that theW hether and w hen L avil l e effected an “e ntry ” i s, 8 acc or di ngl y , notof contr ol l i ng s i gni fi canc e. 22 

### pol i c e ha d pr obabl e c aus e t o arr e s t Mye r s for sim p le assau lt. I d. at 261. Es s e nt i a lt o thi s hol di ng wa s ac onc lus i on that the go vernm ent c ou ld no t r ely up oninfo rm ation sup plie d b y a third p arty sh o rtly b ef o re th e arrest: A zzaran o testif

iedth at h e w as su sp icio u s b ecau se hiding behinda doo r at t

he approach of

a polic e of fice r i s i ncon si st ent with a “s im ple argum ent. ” Az z ar ano e xpl a i ne d that

he poi nt e d hi s gun at

the do or Myer s was hiding behind“bec auseI bel ie ved he ha d agun i n hi s pos s e s s i on ba se d u po n the fact t hat t heli ttlegi rl

had s aid s o. ” I

d. at 71a ( e m pha s i s a dde d)
. He di d not ba s e hi s c onc lus i on that Myer s was ar

m ed onany

thing h e heard or saw afte r he e nter ed the r es idence
. I d. at 261. He r e , a s i n M

yers , lo cal lawp ro v id es th at a w arrantless arr e s t for ami s de m e anor

i s va l i d onl y

i f the mi s de m e anor o ccurredinth e p resen ce o f th e arrestin g o f

f icer. H ere, as in M yers , the gove rnm e nt

i s not e nt i t l e d t o r e l y

on i nform at i on s uppl i e d t o the arr e s t i ng offi c e r by athi r d party . Thi s i s the p rev ailin g misd em ean o r p resen ce ru le. See2 Way ne R. LaFave, et al., C rim in a l Pro ced

u re§ 3
. 5
. I f

w e a p p l y M yers to th e f

acts of our c a s e , Ibe l i e ve the c ha l l e nge d e vi de nc e m us t be supp re ss ed. Bas ed onhis ownob se rvation, Of fice r Santos had no r e a s onabl e gr ound for be l i e vi ng that

Lavi l l e wa s an a l i e n, m uch les s an ill egalon e. 8 

### Th i s i s no t

t o s ay that , i n theabs e nc e of M yers , I w o u ld fi nd i t s hol di ng t o be the c urr e nt l aw of the l and. Ic onc lude23 

### onl y that Ido not r e gar d my s e l f fr e e i n thi s c a s e t o de part fr om what Iunde r s t and t o be the hol di ng i n M yers . M yr eadi ng of M

yers i s n o tt h e o n l yr e a s o n f o rmy d iss e n t, ho w e v e r. E v e n in th e a b se n c e o f a n a p p lica b le m is d e m e a n o r p re s e n c e ru le , I w o u ld re a c h th e s a m e c o n c lu s io n . I n m yvi ew , t he t ot al i t yof the ci r cumst ance s w i t hi n t he arr es t i ng offi cer ’ s know l edge w as nots uffi ci entt o w arr anta per s on of r eas onabl e ca ut i on t o concl ude thatL avi l l e had c om m i t t ed or w as comm i t t i ng an off

ens e. A s th e law re g a rd in g in f o rm a tio n f

ro m in f o rm a n ts i l l us t r at es , even i n t he abs ence of a mi s demeanorpr es ence rul e, an off i cerof r eas onabl e ca ut i on does notr el yupon t he uns uppor t ed bel i ef of

s om eone e l s e w ho does notappea rt o have, a n d d o e s n o t p u rp o rt to h a v e , a re a s o n a b le b a s is f o r h is b e lie f
. See I l l i nois v. G at es , 462 U
. S. 213, 230 ( 1983) ( w hether i nfo rm at i on supp l i ed b yan inform ant s up po rt s probab l e cause depends on i nfor m ant ’ s ver aci t y , r el i abi l i t y , and bas i s of know l edge, among ot hercons i der at i ons ) ; 2 W ayne R
. L aFave, Sear ch & Sei

z ur e § 3. 4 ( not i ng t hatal t hough G at es d e a lt w ith i nfor m at i on obt ai ned fr om i nfor m ant s w ho ar e partof the
“ c rim in a l m ili e u ,” it is “ lik e w ise a p p ro p ria te to g iv e se p a ra te cons i der at i on t o t he mat t er s of ver aci t yand bas i s of know l edge .

. . [ i]n c a se s w h e re th e p o lice h a v e a c ted o r se e k a u th o riz a tio n to a c t p rim a rilyu p o n in f

o rm a tio n f

ro m th e v ictim o f

o r a w itn e ss to a cr i m e”)
. T hi s i s r el evanther e bec aus e one c annotdet erm i ne w hethers om eone i s an al i en ora non- al i en bys i m pl yl ooki ng at hi m . N orcan one det er m i ne w hethers om eone i s an i l l egal al i en ora l egal al i en bys i m pl yl ooki ng athi m . M ark Sperbert hus not o n ly d id n o t p u rp o rt to h a v e , b u t a ls o d id n o t a p p e a r t o h a v e , a r el i abl e bas i s forbel i evi ng t hatL avi l l e w as anyt hi ng ot hert han a ci t i zen ora non- ci t i zen w i t h a r i ghtt o be pr es enti n t he U ni t ed S t at es. W hen O ffi cerSant os s t ood w i t h M ark Sperberon t he C hr i s t i ans t ed w har f, he had r el i abl e i nfor m at i on t hata s ai l i ng ves s el had run agr ound and thats om e on boar d had come on s hor e. I am w i l l i ng t o as s um e forpr es entpurpos es t hatSant os al s o had r el i abl e i nfor m at i on t hatL avi l l e had c om e as hor e fr omC ont r aryt o t he C o ur t ’ s s ugges t i on, Sperber ’ s t i p w as not 9 corr obor at ed byt he C ubans
. T he C ubans di d nott el l S ant os t hat “otheri l l eg al a li ens w er e i n t he vi ci ni t y , ” s ee M aj. O p . at 14
. In fa ct, the C u b an s n ev er a d v ised S an tos tha t th eythem selv es w ere i l l egal al i ens ; t heys i m pl y t ol d Sant os t hatt heyw er e fr om C uba and h a d c o m e a s h o re f

ro m th e b o a t. See A p p . at 3 8 -3 9 . S a n to s c o u ld noti nferfr o m this si m pl e admi s s i on t hatt he C ubans w er e i l l egal a lien s, a s th e g o v e rn m e n t f ra n k lyc o n c e d e d to th e D istric t C o u rt. See te x t, i nfr a . 24 th a t v e ss e l. B u t th a t w a s th e su m to tal o f th e re lev a n t, relia b le in f o rm a tio n S a n to s p o ss e ss e d w h e n L a v ill e w a s p o in ted o u t to hi m . Sant os di d notques t i on L avi l l e pr i ort o hi s arr es t , and, w h ile S p e rb e r d id a s s e rt to S a n to s th a t L a v ille w a s a n “ ille g a l,” Sant os had no bas i s forbel i evi ng t hi s w as t rus t w or t hy in f o rm a tio n . S p e rb e r d id n o t p u rp o rt to h a v e sp o k e n w ith

9 L avi l l e, and ther e w as no appar entw aySperbercoul d have le a rn e d th a t L a v ille w a s a n a lie n , m u c h le s s a n ille g a l a lie n . I ndeed, t he governm entconce ded as m uch w hen ques t i oned by t he D i s t r i ctC our t
. I tconce ded that , even i f Sant os had obt ai ned re liab le in f

o rm a tio n th a t L a v ill e w a s f ro m D o m in ica , h e w o u ld nothave ha d pr obabl e ca us e t o bel i eve he w as i n vi ol at i on of the i m m i grat i on l aw s:

T H E C O U R T : W oul d y ou conce de that know l edge thats om eone i s fr om C uba or D o m in ica d o e s n o t in a n d o f itse lf g iv e rise to pr obabl e ca us e thats om eone i s i n vi ol at i on of im m ig ra tio n law s? W o u ld y o u c o n c e d e th a t? M R
. A N D R E W S: I w oul d conce de, J udge. A pp. at73- 74. In su m m a ry , all th a t S a n to s re liab lyk n e w w h e n L a v ill e w as poi nt ed outt o hi m w as t hatL avi l l e w as a per s on w ho had come as hor e fr om a ves s el i n di s t r es s and thatcl ear l ydi d not pr ovi de hi m w i t h pr obabl e ca us e t o bel i eve thatL avi l l e had comm i t t ed orw as comm i t t i ng a cr i m e.25 T he onl yaddi t i onal fac tSant os knew att he t i m e of L avi l l e’ s arr es tw as t hatL avi l l e had a t t empt ed t o avoi d cont act w i t h l aw enfor cementoffi cer s . I fi nd t hi s conductt oo ambi guous i n t hi s cont extt o pr ovi de a ba s i s form or e than s pecul at i on. I w oul d s uppr es s t he s t at ementgi ven t o t he I C E as w el l as t he s t at ement gi ven t o t he V i r gi n I s l ands pol i ce a s “frui tof the p o is o n tr e e .” A ccor di ngl y , I w oul d aff i r m t he rul i ng fr om w hi ch the go vernm ent appeals
.