Legal Definitions - Immigration & Naturalization Service v. Delgado

The case of Immigration & Naturalization Service v. Delgado, 466 U.S. 210 (1984), is a significant Supreme Court decision that clarifies what constitutes a "seizure" under the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, particularly in the context of government agents questioning individuals in a workplace.

The term Immigration & Naturalization Service (INS) refers to the former U.S. government agency responsible for immigration enforcement and services, whose functions are now primarily carried out by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP).

At its core, the Fourth Amendment protects individuals from unreasonable searches and seizures by the government. A "seizure" occurs when, considering all the circumstances, a reasonable person would believe they are not free to leave or terminate an encounter with law enforcement. In Delgado, the Supreme Court addressed whether unannounced visits by INS agents to factories, where they questioned employees about their citizenship, amounted to an unconstitutional seizure of either the entire workforce or individual employees.

The Court ruled that these factory surveys did not constitute a seizure under the Fourth Amendment. The majority opinion reasoned that even though INS agents were present and questioned workers, and some agents were positioned near exits, employees were generally free to move around the factory and continue their work. The questioning of individual employees was brief and non-coercive. Therefore, a reasonable person in that situation would not have felt that they were detained and unable to leave. The Court emphasized that the mere presence of government agents and questioning, without physical restraint or a clear indication that one is not free to depart, does not automatically create a "seizure."

Here are some examples illustrating the principles from Immigration & Naturalization Service v. Delgado:

• Workplace Compliance Check: Imagine a state labor department conducting an unannounced visit to a large call center to ensure compliance with wage and hour laws. Several agents walk through the open office space, briefly stopping at individual cubicles to ask employees about their work hours and pay. The agents do not block exits, employees continue taking calls, and the questioning is short and polite. In this scenario, similar to Delgado, a court would likely find that no "seizure" occurred. The employees are not physically restrained, they can continue their work, and a reasonable person would likely feel free to decline to answer or leave the immediate area if they wished, even with agents present. The overall environment does not suggest a coercive detention where employees are not free to leave.

• Public Health Survey: Consider a situation where public health officials visit a bustling farmers' market to conduct a survey about recent foodborne illnesses. They set up a small table and have several officials walk through the market, politely approaching vendors and shoppers to ask if they've experienced any symptoms or purchased suspicious items. Individuals are free to walk past the officials, stop and chat, or continue their shopping without interruption. There are no barriers, blocked paths, or demands for identification. This interaction would likely not be considered a seizure under Delgado. Individuals are not compelled to stop or answer; a reasonable person would understand they are free to ignore the officials and continue their activities, demonstrating a lack of detention.

• Environmental Agency Investigation: Suppose the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) conducts an investigation into potential pollution at a large manufacturing plant. DEP officials enter the plant during operational hours and, with management's permission, briefly interview various employees on the factory floor about specific processes. The officials move from station to station, and employees are not pulled away from their work for extended periods. While officials are present, employees are not prevented from moving around the plant or taking breaks. This scenario aligns with Delgado because, despite the presence of government officials and questioning, the employees' freedom of movement within the workplace is not significantly restricted. A reasonable employee would likely perceive these as brief inquiries rather than a detention where they are not free to leave the premises or stop cooperating.