Carlos J.M. v. Blanche

Background

Carlos J.M. had been detained by United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) since June 11, 2026. The opinion states that he is a native and citizen of Mexico who entered the United States in 2019 without inspection. ICE arrested him during a targeted worksite enforcement operation in Bemidji, Minnesota. ICE records stated that officers had identified a worksite with multiple people believed to be living and working unlawfully in the United States and that the people scattered and ran when officers conducted surveillance.

After the arrest, ICE served Carlos J.M. with a Form I-200 administrative arrest warrant. The next day, ICE issued and served him with a notice to appear. Carlos J.M. filed a five-count petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, challenging his detention and arrest. His claims asserted violations of the Fifth Amendment’s due-process protections, the Fourth Amendment, statutes and regulations governing arrests of noncitizens, the Accardi doctrine, and the Administrative Procedure Act. He sought release or a bond hearing, declaratory relief, and attorney fees and costs under the Equal Access to Justice Act.

Analysis

The court explained that immigration officers may arrest a noncitizen under an arrest warrant issued by the Attorney General under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). Officers may also make a warrantless arrest under 8 U.S.C. § 1357(a)(2) when they have reason to believe the person is violating immigration law and is likely to escape before a warrant can be obtained. Because the Fourth Amendment applies to these arrests, the statute’s “reason to believe” requirement means probable cause.

The court first addressed the Form I-200 warrant. The Government admitted that an I-200 warrant can be issued only after a notice to appear has been filed. Because Carlos J.M. was arrested before the notice to appear was issued and served, the court concluded that he was arrested without a valid warrant.

The court then considered whether the arrest was lawful without a warrant. The Government argued that ICE first conducted a brief investigative detention, commonly called a Terry stop, and that Carlos J.M.’s flight supplied probable cause to arrest him. The court rejected that characterization, agreeing with the reasoning in a prior related proceeding involving an arrest at the same worksite and the same record that ICE’s apprehension of Carlos J.M. was an arrest, not a Terry stop.

The court further concluded that probable cause was not established because unprovoked flight was the only particularized evidence against Carlos J.M. The record did not provide additional details about ICE’s basis for investigating the worksite or Carlos J.M. specifically. The court therefore found that ICE arrested him without the probable cause required by 8 U.S.C. § 1357(a)(2).

Disposition

The court recommends that Carlos J.M.’s habeas 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 any property in its possession. Because it recommended release, the court did not reach Carlos J.M.’s alternative grounds for habeas relief.

This document is a report and recommendation, not a final order or judgment of the District Court. The notice states that it is not directly appealable to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit and that objections could be filed within the stated deadline.