N.S. v. HUGHES, No. 1:2020cv00101 - Document 71 (D.D.C. 2020)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Royce C. Lamberth on 11/13/2020. (lcrcl3)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
N.S. v. HUGHES Doc. 71 Dockets.Justia.com added). This includes the act of arresting and detaining plaintifs in a courthouse cellblock. By contrast, "seizure" also has a technical meaning when used as a term of art in the Fourth Amendment context. In that context, a "seizure" occurs either when an oficer restrains a person's reedom of movement with physical orce such that a reasonable person would not feel ree to leave or when an oficer makes a show of authority to which the subject yields. United States v. Mendenhall, 446 U.S. 544,553 (1980); Calfornia v. Hodari D., 499 U.S. 621, 625-26 (1991). For example, a "seizure" in this technical sense can occur when two oficers momentarily corner a subject in a crowded hallway. Cf Mendenhall, 446 U.S. at 554. A "seizure" in this sense could also occur if one of the officers grabbed the subject by his arm to prevent him from running away. I. Notably, this.technical Fourth Amendment deinition of "seizure:' includes conduct less severe than locking someone in a holding cell. The Court's Preliminary Injunction Order, ECF No. 40, should not be read to enjoin all such technical Fourth Amendment seizures. The Court enjoined only the conduct that plaintifs challenged in their complaint and preliminary injunction motion: the USMS practice of arresting and detaining individuals suspected of civil immigration violations.2 Accordingly, to avoid the ambiguity created by the Court's use of the word "seizing" in its Preliminary Injunction Order, ECF No. 40, the Court will replace the word "seizing" with the phrase "arresting and detaining." All other terms of the Preliminary Injunction Order shall remain the same. 2 In the Court's Memorandum Opinion granting plaintifs' preliminary injunction motion, its indings were limited to the legal authority of the USMS to arrest and detain individuals suspected of civil immigration violations. See NS. I, 335 F.R.D. at 345-51. It did not make any indings as to whether the USMS has the legal authority to "seize" these individuals, as that term of art is used in the Fourth Amendment context. Indeed, this wholly separate question was not brieed when the parties litigated plaintifs' preliminary injunction motion. See generally ECF Nos. 4 & 16; see also NS. II, 2020 WL 4260739, at *7 (noting that "plaintiffs have not raised a Fourth Amendment challenge in this case"). 5
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
