Opinion ID: 773427
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Right to Travel Claims

Text: 114 The plaintiffs' first amended complaint alleged that the defendants' actions unreasonably burdened the fundamental right to travel guaranteed by Article VI, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution and by the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The plaintiffs claimed that defendants' conduct prevented them from freely traveling the highways in the State of Illinois. The district court determined that, while plaintiffs' complaint alleged violations of the right to travel, the factual allegations of the complaint failed to allege any violations of the right to interstate travel--that is, the right to travel among the states. See Chavez v. Ill. State Police, No. 94 CV 5307, 1996 WL 65992 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 12, 1996). Thus, the court concluded that only intrastate travel--travel within the state of Illinois--was raised by the allegations of the complaint. See id. 115 The district court then determined that [n]either the Supreme Court nor the Seventh Circuit have addressed whether intrastate travel is afforded the same protection under constitutional principles as interstate travel and declined to conclude that it is. Id. The court dismissed the plaintiffs' claims pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiffs appeal this ruling, arguing that Chavez's right to travel claim should not have been dismissed. 116 We review the district court's dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) de novo, examining a plaintiff's factual allegations and any inferences reasonably drawn therefrom in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. See Marshall-Mosby v. Corp. Receivables, Inc., 205 F.3d 323, 326 (7th Cir. 2000). Dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) is proper only if the plaintiff could prove no set of facts in support of his claims that would entitle him to relief. Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46, 78 S. Ct. 99, 2 L. Ed. 2d 80 (1957); Veazey v. Communications & Cable of Chi., Inc., 194 F.3d 850, 854 (7th Cir. 1999). [I]f it is possible to hypothesize a set of facts, consistent with the complaint, that would entitle the plaintiff to relief, dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) is inappropriate. Veazey, 194 F.3d at 854 (citing Graehling v. Vill. of Lombard, Ill., 58 F.3d. 295, 297 (7th Cir. 1995)). 117 The right to travel embraces at least three different components: 1) the right of a citizen of one state to enter and leave another state; 2) the right to be treated as a welcome visitor rather than an unfriendly alien when temporarily present in the second state; and 3) for those travelers who elect to become permanent residents, the right to be treated like other citizens of that state. See Saenz v. Roe, 526 U.S. 489, 500, 119 S. Ct. 1518, 143 L. Ed. 2d 689 (1999). 118 We do not agree with the district court that Chavez's claim only alleged a violation of his right to intrastate travel. Chavez alleges, in effect, that the ISP's practices are a barrier to his ability to enter and leave the state of Illinois. This is a legal claim based on the first component of the right to interstate travel, and the district court should have examined whether the complaint properly stated a claim under this component. We will thus consider whether Chavez could prove any set of facts that would prevent dismissal of his interstate travel claims under Rule 12(b)(6). 119 The first component of the right to travel prohibits direct impairment of the right to move between the states, that is, the right to go from one place to another, including the right to cross state borders while en route. 12 The scope of this component is not well defined because it has received only limited treatment from the Supreme Court. Past cases spoke in terms of 'actual barriers' to interstate movement, though the component may encompass a broader range of prohibitions. Md. State Conference of NAACP Branches v. Md. Dept. of State Police, 72 F. Supp. 2d 560, 568 (citing Bray v. Alexandria Women's Health Clinic, 506 U.S. 263, 277, 113 S. Ct. 753, 122 L. Ed. 2d 34 (1993); Zobel v. Williams, 457 U.S. 55, 60 n.6, 102 S. Ct. 2309, 72 L. Ed. 2d 672 (1982)). Even giving this prohibition a broad scope, however, plaintiffs' factual allegations, if proved, would not demonstrate any direct impairment. Defendants have done nothing to prevent Chavez from entering or leaving the state. Further, Chavez has asserted that he will travel to Illinois in the future, not that the defendants are preventing him from doing so. Chavez's claim that he was stopped in Illinois on the basis of his race, simply does not state a right to travel claim, based upon the first component of that right, under which relief could be granted. See Saenz, 526 U.S. at 501 (noting that the California statute at issue, limiting the maximum welfare benefits available to newly arrived residents, did not impose an obstacle to plaintiffs' entry into the state). 120 We thus turn to the second component of the right to travel, expressly protected by Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1 of the Constitution: The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The purpose of this provision is to protect non-residents from discrimination where there is no substantial reason for the discrimination beyond the mere fact that they are citizens of other states. Saenz, 526 U.S. at 502 (citing Toomer v. Witsell, 334 U.S. 385, 396, 68 S. Ct. 1156, 92 L. Ed. 1460 (1948)). Plaintiffs allege that the ISP's practice of stopping, detaining, and searching African-American and Hispanic motorists unreasonably burdens their right to be treated as welcome visitors in Illinois. Plaintiffs' complaint does not allege that the ISP discriminates against non- residents, however, but that the ISP targets all African-American and Hispanic motorists, regardless of their state of origin. This allegation does not state a claim under the Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article VI. 121 Plaintiffs also allege, on appeal, that the defendants target African-Americans and Hispanic motorists from states in the American southwest. Defendants have repeatedly asserted that Valkyrie officers are not trained to stop people based on any type of indicator, race or otherwise, yet the defendants contradict this statement at least twice: 1) the defendants' statistical expert stated that ISP officers would be more inclined to stop a vehicle with a license plate from a drug source state than a vehicle with a license place from a non-drug source state; and 2) the defendants' appellate brief stated that Valkyrie troopers focus on whether a particular vehicle or driver is both violating the traffic laws and also displaying any combination of DEA-approved characteristics associated with drug couriers, such as license plates from a drug source state. 122 While the allegation that defendants stop motorists driving cars from drug source states was not before the district court, the well-established law of this circuit provides that, when reviewing a dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6), 'we will consider new factual allegations raised for the first time on appeal provided they are consistent with the complaint.' Veazey, 194 F.3d at 861 (quoting Highsmith v. Chrysler Credit Corp., 18 F. 3d 434, 439 (7th Cir. 1994)). The allegation, however, is rife with problems. 123 First, the allegation that Chavez was stopped because he had an out of state license plate is not consistent with the complaint. The complaint is hinged upon the allegation that Chavez was stopped because of his race. He has never alleged that he was stopped because of his out of state license plate. Second, plaintiffs asked this court to ignore the possibility that Valkyrie officers stop vehicles with out of state plates for the purposes of the equal protection analysis, dismissing the idea as a late- day attempt by the ISP to justify the high numbers of Hispanics stopped. The final blow, however, is plaintiffs' own admission that the ISP does not engage in pre-stop profiling based on license plates: 124 The deposition testimony both of front- line Valkyrie troopers and of the head of the Valkyrie program shows that Valkyrie troopers do not profile prior to stopping a car; rather, Valkyrie encounters emerge from routine traffic stops. In fact, significant evidence demonstrates that the Valkyrie program does not train officers which motorists to stop for violations of the traffic code; rather, Valkyrie officers are trained to identify indicators of drug trafficking only after a vehicle has already been stopped. 125 Plaintiffs' Preliminary Response to Defendants' Daubert Motion to Strike Plaintiffs' Expert Reports, at 17-18. Plaintiffs can not base their right to travel claim upon something that they have admitted does not occur. 126 In light of the above analysis, we will affirm the Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal of Chavez's right to travel claim. We do not reach the question of whether targeting vehicles with out of state license plates would be a violation of the right to travel. 127