Warning

Info

Warning

Info

Warning

Info

LSDefine

Simple English definitions for legal terms

Immigration & Naturalization Service v. Delgado

Read a random definition: ademption

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
19:43
@Dkk: yeah register 1 website and every swinging tom dick and harry calls/emails/texts to 'help with seo'. like bruh, if YOU found it, what i am doing is working
Dkk
19:43
Indeed!
19:48
wasp, i think people are hopeful for a gov who at least attempts to care about the common man
MIAMI A
[] AromaticTroubledDormouse
20:55
How does one know if they are UR1 or UR2?
[] AromaticTroubledDormouse
20:56
CONGRATS MACAQUE!
TY
got a random stanford email and almost had a heart attack
ALSO CONGRATS!
Congrats1!
21:15
Miami A, yall I'm so excited I could cry.
21:15
Feel like I can finally stop holding my breath!! Whew!!!
[] baddestbunny
22:16
every time I get accosted by a strange man who follows me around because my male coworkers were too busy talking to walk me back to my car I get closer to saying we need to bring back traditional gender roles
Dkk
22:32
Nice! @Macaque
Dkk
22:32
@Aromatic, Have to guess.
Dkk
22:33
That sucks @Bunny do you have to go to the hospital?
[] baddestbunny
22:40
I said accosted not assaulted
23:35
guys. my notre dame address just went long is this good or bad
1a2b3c4d26z
23:37
Oooooo me too
23:37
omg is this good or bad
Dkk
23:47
Idk if gender roles are gunna fix that then.
23:49
it looks like most people who applied in october last cycle didn't get a decision until january... does it even mean anything that our addresses went long??
hows ED 2 compared to ED 1?
Dkk
0:10
No idea
windyMagician
0:34
reporting live to say my ndls address also went long
does it mean anything ^
Dkk
2:21
NDLS and Fordham took a very long time last year. It's good info for people to know.
[] baddestbunny
4:29
let’s get after it boys and girls
Dkk
5:21
I gtg to bed soon.
Dkk
5:22
Big day today. Gunna be a crazy one. I will sleep through the first half.
LSD+ is ad-free, with DMs, discounts, case briefs & more.