Warning

Info

Warning

Info

Warning

Info

LSDefine

Simple English definitions for legal terms

Immigration & Naturalization Service v. Delgado

Read a random definition: reasonable royalty

A quick definition of Immigration & Naturalization Service v. Delgado:

In Immigration & Naturalization Service v. Delgado, the Supreme Court decided that the INS could walk through factories and question workers about their citizenship without violating the Fourth Amendment. The Court found that the surveys did not constitute a seizure of the entire work force, and the individual questioning did not constitute a seizure under the Fourth Amendment. The Court applied the reasonable person test and found that the INS did not constrain the workers' physical movement or prevent them from continuing to work. The Court also noted the brevity of the questioning and the important governmental interest of finding undocumented noncitizens.

A more thorough explanation:

Immigration & Naturalization Service v. Delgado was a case heard by the Supreme Court in 1984. The case was about whether the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) violated the Fourth Amendment by conducting factory surveys and questioning workers about their citizenship. The Fourth Amendment protects individuals from unreasonable seizures and detention by the police.

The INS agents walked through factories and questioned workers about their citizenship in an attempt to find undocumented noncitizens. If the employee responded to the INS agents by saying that he was a U.S. citizen, the agents would move on to another employee. However, if the factory worker gave an unsatisfactory reply or admitted to being an alien, the INS agent asked for the employee’s immigration papers.

The Supreme Court held that the factory surveys conducted by the INS did not constitute a seizure of the entire work force under the Fourth Amendment. The Court explained that an unreasonable seizure occurs when, considering all the surrounding circumstances of the detention, a reasonable person believes he does not have the freedom to leave during the questioning. During the surveys, several INS agents stationed themselves near the factory building’s exits. The Court rejected the claim that the placement of INS agents at the exits of the factories constrained the employees’ freedom to leave. The Court concluded that a seizure of the entire work forces did not occur. Consequently, it found no violation of the Fourth Amendment.

The Court also held that the interrogation of the individual respondents did not constitute a seizure under the Fourth Amendment. The Court applied the reasonable person test. Although the employees argued that they suffered psychologically from the questioning, the Court did not find that they reasonably feared being arrested and found that they reasonably did not feel constrained. The Court asserted that the INS did not constrain their physical movement. The Court further supported its decision by noting the brevity of the questioning of the individual workers.

Example: The INS conducted factory surveys and questioned workers about their citizenship to find undocumented noncitizens. The Supreme Court held that the factory surveys and individual questioning did not violate the Fourth Amendment because the INS did not unreasonably seize or detain the workers.

immigration | Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)

Warning

Info

General

General chat about the legal profession.
main_chatroom
👍 Chat vibe: 0 👎
Help us make LSD better!
Tell us what's important to you
CynicalOops
17:26
I got my brother tickets to a golf tournament and im going to get my mom ski lift tickets because she just moved near a ski resort
Dkk
18:08
Nice, I am on bad terms with my siblings so i am getting them nothing and they should get me nothing too and I am getting my mom a gift.
18:16
I just noticed that UMich has the majority of their acceptances really early on. Does anyone know what happens to mid-November applicants? Are we just cooked?
TGM
18:23
How long can I delay sending my fall grades if they hurt my GPA? I’m still waiting on decisions and ideally I’m hoping they decide BEFORE seeing my new grades
TGM
18:27
dropped my GPA below median for a couple of schools I’m applying to, when I was above median before
Dkk
18:32
@TGM: Not long enough to get another transcript to recover.
Dkk
18:33
Honestly you could just wait until someone actually asks for your fall grades. Who knows.
Dkk
18:34
@wigwav: It looks like if below medians it will not help but If applying in November it seems you are still middle of the cycle.
18:34
@wigwav: nah
TGM
18:34
like am I expected to send it unprompted or can I wait until a school requested it
Dkk
18:35
@TGM: Expected to send it unprompted but you can wait and see.
18:36
Is your LSAT also below median?
TGM
18:37
It’s above median, but I’m applying T6 with unimpressive softs, so even with a good LSAT it’s tough
texaslawhopefully
18:38
Yeah, then I would just wait as long as you can to send it
texaslawhopefully
18:38
For like HLS at least, if you wait till J6 then you may already have a decision
TGM
18:39
@texaslawhopefully: alas, haven’t even gotten an interview (applied around thanksgiving)
18:39
Yeah I would delay as long as you have plausible deniability
TGM
18:40
I actually do have a transcript issue that registrar needs to resolve, should I say that
TGM
18:41
(Course marked as Incomplete that’s supposed to be removed)
TGM
18:41
not sure if I should email them to say that, or just hold off on sending it and not give an excuse
18:41
I think I just wouldn’t reach out and if they ask for them then say that
Dkk
18:41
@tgm Yeah sounds good, say that if they ask
18:47
hey yall
18:47
im premed idk why im here
18:48
we’re like cool and sexy and fun I get it
18:48
true i love ur user
18:49
thank you my little crow friend
Dkk
18:50
Med law easy done
medicine is a scam
join the ethically ambiguous legal field instead
LSD+ is ad-free, with DMs, discounts, case briefs & more.