Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/402020760/Dr-Scott-Warren-Motion-to-Dismiss-due-to-Selective-Enforcement
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 00:30:29+00:00

Document:
Motion to dismiss the charges of NMD Volunteer Dr. Scott Warren due to selective enforcement. The motion details the surveillance and retaliation USBP conducted against Dr. Warren in response to his criticism of the agency and humanitarian aid work.
SENATE HEARING, 110TH CONGRESS - THE SUNSHINE IN LITIGATION ACT: DOES COURT SECRECY UNDERMINE PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY?
Defendant Scott Daniel Warren, through his pro bono attorneys Gregory J.
22 criticisms constitute the epitome of First-Amendment-protected expression.
1All of NMD’s reports are available at http://forms.nomoredeaths.org/abuse-documentation/.
12 cruelly and unprofessionally that was viewed hundreds of thousands of times that day alone.
24 geographer speaks up,” Cronkite News, Sept. 28, 2017, https://cronkitenews.azpbs.
27 More Deaths, stops for a water break.”).
widespread destruction of water supplies with little or no apparent consequence.
8 provided a patently pretextual explanation for this choice. Agents then swiftly arrested Dr.
9 Warren, whom they knew to be a leader of NMD, for harboring, without evidence that Dr.
additional disclosure to allow him to fully prove selective enforcement.
Protection Guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment.
15 Housing Dev. Corp., 429 U.S. 252 (1977); Washington v. Davis, 426 U.S. 229 (1976)).
25 authority supporting dismissal where selective enforcement is proven).
16 where defendant alleged he was targeted as a member of Chicago Area Draft Resisters).
from putting illegal motivations in writing.
1 inquiry into such circumstantial and direct evidence of intent as may be available.” 429 U.S.
4 reveals a series of official actions taken for invidious purposes.” Id. at 267.
information it is alleged of using discriminatorily).
8 could “afford evidence that improper purposes are playing a role.” Id. at 267.
activity.” Villiarimo v. Aloha Island Air, Inc., 281 F.3d 1054, 1065 (9th Cir. 2002).
Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., 530 U.S. 133, 147 (2000); see also Engquist v. Or.
basis for his acts is a pretext for an impermissible motive.”).
28 decision by a single officer can violate equal protection if made with discriminatory intent.
amount to a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.”).
motivating factor in the decision.” Id. at 266.
Cir. 2017) (cited with approval in United States v. Sellers, 906 F.3d 848 (9th Cir. 2018)).
2 who could potentially be breaking the law, and deciding which to target for investigation.
193 F. Supp. 3d 1040, 1061 (N.D. Cal. 2016).
27 similarly situated in all respects that mattered in terms of choosing whom to pull over.
1 A defendant need not produce dozens of examples to prove selective enforcement.
anecdotal evidence establishing an officer's pattern of similar discriminatory behavior.
16 that other employees with similar qualifications were treated more favorably.”); Brock v.
similarly situated individual”) (emphasis added); Williams v. County of Alameda, 26 F.
22 plaintiff identified one similarly situated individual not arrested).
necessary to establish that component of the claim.
17 strength of the defendant's showing.
intent may be enough to warrant discovery.” Id. at 856.
discriminatory decision themselves; both are equally illegal.
7 addressed by this Court’s prior order. See Appendix.
17 (Scalia, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part) (overruled in part by Citizens United v.
meant to protect [is] the right to criticize the government.”).
interfere with humanitarian aid and express hostility toward the humanitarian workers.
7 This video can be viewed at https://youtu.be/eqaslbj5Th8.
6 of force again reflects the agency’s hostility, as well as its intent to intimidate NMD.
11 This video can be viewed at https://youtu.be/gIhltQo5rjM.
2 that intent was to chill their First Amendment-protected activity.
4 Contact With FWS Officials to Keep Tabs on NMD and Dr. Warren.
18 specifically because he believed him to be connected to NMD.
individuals who had applied for permits to enter the refuge. Id. at 4-5.
asked Bissel for “any new info or names.” Id.
12 proper purpose Marquez may have had.
there. Id. That same day, Marquez established text message contact with Ebann. Exh. 2.
26 members in the course of their work supplying emergency aid supplies in remote areas.
2 me a female’s subjects [sic] name related to No More Deaths/No Mas Muertes.” Id. at 1.
12 although he never stated any reason to suspect them of doing anything illegal.
11 group members he was tracking had allegedly done wrong.
described as “humanitarian,” he never says.
excuse to arrest its leaders.
received news of the report.
17 and his “partner Brendan are gonna set up for a few hours to watch the barn.” Exh. 9 at 1.
2. Marquez responded, “Oh wow. That’s awesome. Wonder who they are gonnablame [sic].
Ballesteros: I am in place. Anything good going on?
21 relayed this to Ballesteros, along with a description of what Warren was wearing.
22 Exh 10 at 2-5.
Toyota, had turned up at the Cabeza office. Exh. 9 at 3-4.
17 excitement at the idea of catching people from NMD doing something wrong.
the surveillance of the Barn was going to reveal the presence of undocumented aliens.
Rather, it evidences Agent Ballesteros’s excitement at the idea of “busting” NMD.
7 Exh. 12 at 1. Marquez also received a text from Ebann: “Is that you on childs.” Exh. 9 at 5.
11 the opportunity to make this particular arrest.
22 bolt,” and Vargas replied, “Ok.” Exh. 12 at 1.
they entered, he did not believe they had probable cause to arrest anyone. Exh. 14 at 4.
Burns then insisted that he could go to the front door in search of the owner, over Dr.
12 aliens.” Exh. 3 at 4.
view, did not have the authority to exclude people (such as the agents themselves) from it.
detection” any individual. 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(iii).
17 actually had any significant involvement, the conclusion is inescapable that they arrested Dr.
21 retaliatory arrest lacking probable cause is strong evidence of selective enforcement.
purpose of assisting the migrants in traveling further into the country, both of which Dr.
after seeing the pointing by Dr. Warren.
took photographs, obtained a search warrant, and arrested the undocumented individuals.
11 could “afford evidence that improper purposes are playing a role.” 429 U.S. at 267.
12 C. The Border Patrol’s Explanation for its Decision to Surveil Is Pretextual.
smuggled north towards Phoenix.” Exh. 3 at 3.
the Border Patrol’s actions in setting up surveillance.
1 For one thing, although Marquez stated in his report that the two men he saw with Dr.
people that were supposedly with the migrant captured the day before; is that true?
7 A: I don’t understand.
8 Q: Did you know whether they were young?
9 Q: Did you know whether they were old?
10 Q: Did you know whether they were tall?
Q: Did you know whether they were short?
13 Q: Did you know whether they had facial hair?
14 Q: Did you know whether they had long hair?
15 Q: Did you know whether they were brown?
strongly supports the notion that the asserted reason was pretextual.
7 expected if he was actually attempting to locate and apprehend the two missing companions.
11 why would the agents wait until the next afternoon to look for them?
28 17 The two migrants eventually arrested at The Barn were not Sauceda’s companions.
border. If the agents were actually looking for them, they certainly would have realized this.
would not have been “What!?!?!?!?!?!” Exh. 10 at 11.
needed to know, or to say; it wouldn’t matter which group was using it at any given time.
2 believed to be undocumented was the relevant part. Burns’s repeated mentions of Dr.
belies the position that the surveillance had nothing to do with the report.
recruits college students to aid in supply drops, and speaks publicly on immigration issues.
22 Border Patrol viewed as violating the law, this affiliation would have been equally relevant.
2 organization that had just released the critical report.
toward NMD was “a motivating factor in the decision.” Arlington Heights, 429 U.S. at 266.
24 or information as possible aid sites, are thus similarly situated to The Barn.
without mentioning any of the other organizations. Exh. 3 at 3; Exh. 13 at 1.
11 he had nonspecific, hearsay information that it might have been a site for aid to migrants.
who lived on Rosedale Avenue brought a van and arranged help for an injured migrant. Exh.
17 white van; a brief drive up Rosedale Avenue could thus have revealed a specific location.
Ballesteros) could easily have set up to watch all the comings and goings from that location.
the Border Patrol could have looked for allegedly missing individuals, but did not.
by NMD. Likewise, an informer identified Philips as a supporter of Ajo Samaritans, Exh.
regularly at the Ajo Federated Church, yet the agents did not set up their surveillance there.
26 had just exercised their First Amendment rights.
12 Amendment activity, and were not arrested.
21 checking their records, the agents released them. Id.
individuals who were not arrested.
situated places and individuals not targeted for enforcement as identified in the Appendix.
1 RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 14th day of March, 2019.
heat-related illness, Border Patrol agents are destroying gallons of water intended for border crossers.
mile desert corridor near Arivaca, Arizona.
1 Personal interview, September 20, 2016, Nogales, Sonora, Mexico.
agents routinely sabotage this work and maximize the suffering of border crossers.
with Humanitarian Aid: Death and Disappearance on the US-Mexico Border is divided into four sections.
GIS analyses to establish the potential consequences of these actions for border crossers.
aid in the remote regions of the borderlands.
2 See the introduction to this report series for further analysis of Prevention Through Deterrence.
to answer the following research questions: What is the extent of destruction at water-drop sites?
vandalization works to maximize the hardship and suffering inflicted on border crossers.
individual. All names have been changed or withheld to protect the anonymity of those quoted.
for five years or more.
drastically lower numbers of apprehensions.
ered, and those who are never found are considered disappeared.
and cold, as well as dehydration from lack of access to water.
week to nearly a month.
They want to kill us. They are murderers.
borderlands. They treat us no better than animals.
tans, the South Texas Human Rights Center, and Border Angels are a few of these.
2 Anonymous, personal interview, September 21, 2016, Arivaca, Arizona.
beans inside rot. Border crossers encountered by volunteers have often gone days without food.
gallons were found to have been used by border crossers on each visit to each site.
however, were destroyed by people. We refer to this human-caused destruction as vandalism.
Who Is Likely Responsible for Vandalizing Humanitarian Aid?
refuge personnel—as well as local residents—are all present in the area where No More Deaths works.
aid vandalism is attributable to hunters?
1 See the appendix on methodology for more information on how each of these values was measured.
we find that there is a vandalism-event rate of 6.6%.
baseline vandalism rate of 6.6% is especially interesting.
responsible for the majority of the destruction.
experiences where Border Patrol vehicles Corridor?
when Border Patrol agents approached Border Patrol.
1 Provided by the Arizona Game and Fish Department. See https://www.azgfd.com/hunting/units/.
actors in the region to do the same.
the specific contribution of water vandalization.
The ruggedness index was arrived at by calculating distance and exposure using various spatial data.
1 Anonymous, personal interview, August 2014, Tucson, Arizona.
Euclidean distance from the border.
will become increasingly difficult for them to reduce this stress.
that any food or water left at Apache Well would quickly be slashed or confiscated.
assume that her chances would have considerably increased.
to which the figure applies, rather than the additional distance travelled to circumnavigate impediments.
Washington, DC: National Academies Press, 2006.
harassment of humanitarian activities by the Border Patrol.
US Border Patrol agents outside No More Deaths’ Humanitarian Aid Camp during raid on June 15th, 2017.
unimpeded provision of non-enforcement related humanitarian assistance is essential.
interference with humanitarian aid persists.
humanitarian aid is merely a band-aid solution to a crisis of its own making.
1 Nancy Montoya, “Rare Meeting Between Tucson Rights Groups, Border Patrol,” Arizona Public Media, April 17, 2017.
Border Patrol agents disappears, and when the paramilitary approach to border control is abandoned.
supplies for such a journey is impossible. In this deadly context, the provision of water is essential.
1 Anonymous, personal interview, September 21, 2016, Arivaca, Arizona.
2 Nobel lecture by James Orbinski, Médecins sans Frontières, Oslo, December 10, 1999.
Border Patrol agents circulating in massive numbers throughout remote areas of the Sonoran Desert.
the US border policy of Prevention Through Deterrence.
disciplinary measures in publicly accessible records.
and should be investigated as such.
normalizing the data were also used when looking at vandalism.
ruggedness index (RI) in the form T+GC+S+J=RI.
border, or a ruggedness cost distance (RCD).
1. Open water, such as reservoirs, was considered uncrossable.
Calories by accounting for cell size and time, creating a Caloric Index (CI).
Patrol obstruction of humanitarian aid, as well as their effect on the people involved.
dataset. Photogrammetric engineering and remote sensing, 68(1), 5-32.
and Remote Sensing, 81(5), 345-354.
Landsat 8 data. International Journal of Research in Engineering and Technology, 3(5), 122-126.
global change research. Remote Sensing of Environment, 145, 154-172.
on sloped terrain. Aviation, space, and environmental medicine, 72(6), 562-566.
(pp. 60600F-60600F). International Society for Optics and Photonics.
Below is the message that we sent to BP from the NMD media account on the morning of the release of the report.
leadership to stop this from happening. See attached.
Awareness for No More Deaths (NMD) events. This information has been shared with TCA PAO.
on the lives of illegal aliens.
prone to injury and/or getting lost (referred to as “disappeared”).
efforts by vandalizing food and water drops left by organizations such as No More Deaths.
post its report online, at http://www.thedisappearedreport.org.
Part 2 if it gets posted tomorrow.
referenced data for their statistics is said to be from years 2012-2015.
UPDATE as of 0900 hrs 01/17/2018.
water bottles were located in areas where their loss would be most lethal to migrants.
meeting scheduled for tonight at 8pm at the Global Justice Center.
15 By: NATHANIEL WALTERS, ESQ.
By: AMY PICKERING KNIGHT, ESQ.
19 GREGORY J. KUYKENDALL, ESQ.
2 immediately leave the premises.
7 exhibits up that are not presently being used.
15 Q. And by take everyone in, that means detain them; right?
17 Q. Put handcuffs on them; right?
19 Q. And take them to the station; right?
22 at the property known as the barn?
23 A. That's not correct.
25 A. Everyone on whom I had good probable cause to arrest.
1 Q. But you weren't going in with probable cause; right?
3 Q. You were going in to conduct a knock and talk.
7 probable cause to take in; right?
10 engaged in criminal activity.
12 to arrest people with probable cause?
13 A. Yes, sir, that's my job.
17 conversation with Agent Smith.
19 appears and creates this thing you're talking about?
20 A. He's not on this page.
21 Q. All right. I just turned the page. Is it on that page?
23 Q. All right. There's a Chris Smith on the next page.
25 along the lines of look over at your side for prosecution.
5 that had been captured the day before in Ajo, right?
6 A. Yes, I did write that.
9 the migrant captured the day before; is that true?
10 A. I don't understand.
11 Q. Did you know whether they were young?
13 Q. Did you know whether they were old?
15 Q. Did you know whether they were tall?
17 Q. Did you know whether they were short?
19 Q. Did you know whether they had facial hair?
21 Q. Did you know whether they had long hair?
23 Q. Did you know whether they were brown?
5 A. I assumed male.
6 Q. You assumed it?
14 of the two guys that you saw with Dr. Warren?
17 A. -- we knew that they were Central Americans.
19 your scope that they were Central Americans?
20 A. I didn't say a quarter mile.
25 assumed they were Central Americans.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.

 v. 
 v.

 § 1324