Sergio F.M. v. Blanche

Background

Sergio F.M. filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, a legal procedure used to challenge unlawful custody. He alleged that Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) unlawfully arrested and detained him. The opinion states that he is a citizen of Bolivia, entered the United States in 2022 as a nonimmigrant visitor for pleasure, later applied for political asylum, and received a work permit. He had been detained at the Sherburne County Jail since ICE took him into custody on May 20, 2026.

The petition asserted three claims: that the arrest violated the Fourth Amendment because it occurred without a warrant or probable cause; that the arrest and detention violated Fifth Amendment procedural due process; and that the Government violated immigration regulations, including 8 C.F.R. § 287(c)(2)(ii). Sergio F.M. requested, among other relief, a declaration that his detention was unlawful and his release.

Administrative Warrant

The court considered whether the Form I-200 administrative arrest warrant supplied a lawful basis for the arrest. The warrant was issued and served on May 20, 2026, the date of the arrest, but it was not timestamped. The Government did not address when it was issued.

The court concluded that two facts strongly indicated that the warrant was issued after Sergio F.M.’s arrest. First, the warrant relied in part on biometric confirmation of his identity, which the court reasoned could have occurred only after he was taken into ICE custody. Second, ICE served the warrant at Fort Snelling while he was being processed, rather than at the time and place of arrest. The court therefore found that the submitted warrant did not provide a lawful basis for the arrest.

The opinion also noted that a record suggested a warrant may have been issued in March 2026, but no such warrant was submitted. The court stated that, in any event, an earlier Form I-200 warrant would have been invalid because the Notice to Appear initiating removal proceedings was issued on May 20, 2026.

Warrantless Arrest

The court explained that immigration officers may make a warrantless arrest under 8 U.S.C. § 1357(a)(2) only if they have reason to believe that a noncitizen is unlawfully present and is likely to escape before a warrant can be obtained. Because the Fourth Amendment applies to these arrests, the statute’s phrase “reason to believe” requires probable cause.

The court found that immigration officials had reason to believe Sergio F.M. was in the United States in violation of immigration law because Government records indicated that he had overstayed his temporary tourist visa. But the court found no reasonable basis to conclude that he was likely to flee before a warrant could be obtained. The Government relied on the fact that he had overstayed his visa by several years. The court held that removability alone was not enough to establish likely flight. It also noted facts weighing against flight, including that Sergio F.M. had a spouse and two children, no criminal record, and employment.

The court therefore found that the warrantless arrest was unlawful because it did not satisfy the requirements of 8 U.S.C. § 1357(a)(2). The opinion states that the parties did not request an evidentiary hearing, despite the usual possibility of such a hearing when facts are disputed.

Recommendation and Procedure

The Report and Recommendation recommends that Sergio F.M.’s petition be granted, that he be released from custody within Minnesota at a time and place communicated to his counsel, and that the Government return his property, if any, in its possession.

The document is a magistrate judge’s recommendation, not a final district court order or judgment. It states that the parties may file specific written objections within five days after being served. The opinion does not state that a final district court order had already been entered.