doj olc memo re handling of ins warrants of deportation in relation to ncic wanted person file...

8/2/2019 DOJ OLC Memo re Handling of INS Warrants of Deportation in Relation to NCIC Wanted Person File (1989)

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/doj-olc-memo-re-handling-of-ins-warrants-of-deportation-in-relation-to-ncic 1/10

Office of theAssistant Attorney Ger.eral

U.S. Departrne. Jf JUSl

Omce of Legal Counsel

Washington, D.C. 20530

Apri l 11 , 1989

Memorandum fo r Joseph R. DavisAss i s t an t Director - Legal Counsel

Federa l Bureau of Inves t iga t ion

Re: Handling of INS Warrants of Deporta t ion in re l a t ion to NCICWanted Person Fi l e

This memorandum i s in response to your r e que s t fo r ouropin ion on whether the Federa l Bureau of Inves t iga t ions (FBI) maye n t e r in to i t s National Crime Information Center (NCIC) WantedPerson Fi le th e names o f persons fo r whom an Immigra t ion andNatura l i za t ion Serv ice (INS) warrant of depor ta t ion i souts tand ing . 1 FBI pol i cy l im i t s use of the NCIC Wanted PersonFi le only to those persons fo r whom warrants have been i s sued andwho may be a r r e s t ed by any law enforcement o f f i c e r with the powerto a r r e s t . 2 We have concluded t h a t , under t h i s cu r ren t po l i c y ,

th e FBI may only e n t e r in to i t s Wanted Person Fi l e th e names of

those persons who a re a l leged to have vio la ted c r imina l laws.Because not everyone fo r whom a warrant of depor ta t ion i souts tand ing has v i o l a t ed a cr iminal law, we bel ieve t h a t awarrant of depor ta t ion f a i l s to cons t i tu te a s u f f i c i e n t b as i s fo rinc lud ing in th e NCIC Wanted Person Fi l e a l l persons su b jec t t o

such a warrant .

1 A warrant o f depor ta t ion i s i ssued only a f t e r t h e re hasbeen a de te rmina t ion by an immigrat ion judge t h a t an a l i en i s in

th e count ry in· ·-violat ion o f e i t h e r c iv i l or c r imina l immigra t ionlaws. 8 C.F.R. 243 .2 .

2 In a Memorandum fo r the Assi s t an t Attorney General , Off ice

of Legal Counsel o f October 21, 1988, the Ass i s t an t D i rec to r - Legal Counsel , FBI, wrote t h a t " i t remains the cu r ren t p o l i cy o f

NCIC to en te r only t hose warrants in to th e NCIC system which may

be executed by any law enforcement o f f i c i a l with genera l a r r e s tpowers. Please accep t t h i s l e t t e r as conf i rmat ion of t h a t f ac t . "



I . Background

The propr ie ty of plac ing INS warrants o f depor ta t ion in toNCIC i s no t a new i s sue . In December 1972, the FBI reques ted a

l eg a l opin ion from the Attorney General on whether INS war ran tscould be executed by othe r federa l o r s t a t e law enforcemento f f i ce r s . The matter was re fe r red to INS, which responded bys t a t i n g t h a t war ran ts of depor ta t ion were admin is t ra t ive war ran ts

of a r r e s t and could be executed only by Department of Ju s t i ce

employees to whom t h a t power had been de lega ted . 3 Based on t h a t

INS posi t ion , th e NCIC Advisory Board recommended, and th e FBI

determined, t h a t it would not place or re t a in INS warrants of

depor ta t ion in its NCIC Wanted Person Fi l e .

The Wanted Person Fi le i s designed to indexpersons for whom warrants have been i s sued

and who may be arres ted by any law

enforcement o f f i c e r with a r r e s t power. These rv i ce o f INS warrants i s so r e s t r i c t i v et h a t ser ious problems could r e s u l t fromp o l i ce of f i ce r s taking individuals in to

custody who have been indexed in NCIC a t the

r e que s t o f INS.

L et t e r to Hon. Leonard F. Chapman, Commissioner, INS, fromClarence M. Kel ley , Direc tor , FBI; January 16, 1974.

In 1986, INS urged a reve rsa l of t h i s pol i cy based onchanges in th e law. 4 Th e INS s ta ted t h a t " fed e ra l , s t a t e andl o ca l o f f i c e r s a re not proscr ibed from ass i s t ing in theapprehension of these wanted a l iens through de ten t ion and

sur render to immigrat ion agents fo r execut ion of th ew a r r a n t ( s ) . ~ 5 The l ega l developments were s e t fo r th in an

3 Memorandum fo r the Acting Director , FBI from Raymond F.

F a r r e l l , Commissioner, INS, January 11, 1973, a t 2. ("Although [8U.S.C. 1603(a)] au thor izes th e Attorney General to confe r uponany employee of the uni t ed Sta tes any of th e powers o r dut ies

conferred upon o f f i c e r s o r employees of INS, there i s nos t a tu to ry au t h o r i t y fo r such de lega t ion to any non-federa l

employee. Therefore s t a t e o r l oca l law enforcement o f f i c i a l s a reno t au thor ized to execute INS warrants of a r r e s t . " )

4 L et t e r to David Nemecek, Chief , NCIC, from John F. Shaw,Ass i s t an t commissioner, INS, Apr i l 23, 1986.

5 Id .

- 2 -



accompanying memoranduID4 6 That memorandum concluded t ha t recent

case law indica ted t h a t even though INS warrants a re c i v i l o r

admin is t ra t ive in na ture , s t a t e an d l oca l o f f i c e r s may place a"hold" on a l i en s under warran t . The au thor i ty fo r such a hold

" r e s u l t s from whatever au thor i ty a s t a t e has de lega ted to i t s law

enforcement agencies. , ,7 In other words, whether an ind iv idualmay be he ld by s t a t e or l oca l o f f i c i a l s depends on s t a t e or l o c a l

law. The INS memorandum did not address the d i f fe ren ces , if any,between a "hold" and an a r re s t , but simply concluded t h a t a

s t a t e ' s ab i l i t y to "hold" an a l ien el iminated th e FBI ' s concernt h a t se r io u s problems might a r i se i f the NCIC computer were usedto take a l i ens in to custody.S

The Legal Counsel Divis ion of the FBI reviewed INS' new

p o s i t i o n and agreed t h a t INS warrants of de po r t a t i on could beplaced in th e NCIC system bu t reached t h i s conclus ion fo r reasons

s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t than those r e l i ed upon by INS. 9 The FBI

concluded t h a t the exis tence of such a warrant provided l o ca l ,

s t a t e , and f edera l o f f i ce r swith probable cause

t o b e l i ev e t h a t a

given i nd iv idua l had committed a federa l c r imina l of fense , andt h a t they could, t h e re fo re , under cur ren t fede ra l law a r r e s t t h a tperson . As suppor t fo r t h i s propos i t ion, th e FB I noted t h a t th e

Supreme Cour t had i nd ica ted t h a t "en te r ing o r remainingunlawful ly in t h i s country i s i t s e l f a cr ime." INS v . Lopez-Mendoza, 462 U.S. 1032, 1038 (1983). Because th e conc lus ion inth e FB I Memorandum was based on a r a t i o n a l e d i f f e r e n t than t h a tre l i ed upon by INS, however, you have reques ted t h a t we ana lyze

th e i s sues involved .

I I . Analysis

The FBI 's cu r ren t pol i cy , e s t ab l i shed upon recommendation of

th e NCIC Advisory Pol icy Board, requi res , as noted above, t h a tfo r a person to qual i fy fo r placement in th e Wanted Person F i l e ,"any law enforcement o f f i c e r with a r r e s t power" must be ab le toa r r e s t t h a t person . Thus, th e individual must be s u b j e c t to

a r r e s t no t only by f ed e ra l law enforcement o f f i c e r s but a l so byany s t a t e and l oc a l law enforcement o f f i c e r . We t u rn , t h e re fo re ,

to t he i s sue of whether s t a t e and l oca l enforcement o f f i c e r s can

from6 Memorandum fo r John F. Shaw, Ass i s t an t Commissioner, INS,Maurice C. Inman, General Counsel, INS, November 25, 1985.

7 Id .

8 Id .

9 Memorandum fo r t h e Assi s t an t Attorney Genera l , Off ice o f

Legal Counsel, from Joseph R. Davis, Assistant Director - - LegalDivis ion, February 12, 1987 (FBI Memorandum).

- 3 -



a r r e s t i nd iv idua l s on the bas i s of an outstanding war ran t o f

depor ta t ion .

The cen t ra l check on the ab i l i t y of a law enforcemento f f i c i a l to a r r e s t i s contained in the reasonableness

requirements of the Fourth Amendment, with the b as i c ru l e beingt h a t a pol i ce o f f i c e r can a r r e s t an individual only if the a r r e s ti s based on probable cause to be l ieve t he ind iv idua l hascommitted a crime. Dunaway v. New York, 442 U.S. 200, 211(1979) . Brie f de ten t ions t h a t a re subs tan t ia l ly l e s s i n t ru s i v ethan a r r e s t s - - the momentary, l imi ted in t rus ion of t he so -ca l l ed

T e r r y - s t op , see Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) - - may bej u s t i f i e d by reasonable susp ic ion of cr iminal ac t i v i t y . We

concur in your conclus ion t h a t a "hold" on an a l i en of more than

a few minutes w i l l be t r ea t ed by the cour t s a s an a r r e s t . IO

Accord ingly , it i s necessary t h a t the a r re s t i n g o f f i c e r have

probable cause before p lac ing the person in such a "ho ld . " As

discussed below, we ques t ion whether s t a t e o r l o ca l law

enforcement o f f i ce r s may make such a r r e s t s where t h e a l i en hasno t committed a cr imina l of f ense .

While it may now be sa id t h a t " the genera l ru l e i s t h a tl o ca l pol i ce a re not precluded from enforcing f ed e ra l s t a t u t e s , "

Gonzales v. City of Peor ia , 72 2 F.2d 468, 474 (9th Ci r . 1983) , it

i s no t c l ea r under cur ren t law t h a t l oc a l po l i ce may enforce nonc r imina l fede ra l s t a tu t e s . 11 The pr inc ip le to be used when

de te rmin ing the scope of s t a t e or loca l po l i ce au thor i ty was

10 FBI Memorandum, supra note 8, a t 4, n .2 .

11 We have no t analyzed whether s t a t e and l o c a l lawenforcement o f f i c e r s a re , or could be, author ized by t h e i r s t a t e sto enforce non-cr iminal fede ra l s t a t u t e s . Even if s t a t eau th o r i za t io n ex is ted with re spec t to fede ra l non-cr iminal law,it would necessar i ly have to be cons i s t en t with f ed e ra l

au thor i ty . In t h i s r egard , unl ike the au thor iza t ion fo r s t a t eand l o ca l involvement in fede ra l cr imina l law enforcement , see

i n f r a n. 18, we know of no s imi l a r au thor iza t ion in the noncr imina l context . In add i t ion , the pervas ively federa l na tu re of

immigrat ion cont ro l may preempt a s t a t e ro l e in th e enforcemento f c i v i l immigrat ion mat te r s . For example", th e f ed e ra l c o u r t in

Gonzales i nd ica ted t h a t it assumed t h a t the pervas ive r eg u la to ryscheme Hwould be co n s i s t en t with . . . eXClusive fede ra l powerover immigrat ion ." Gonzales , a t 475. Contrary to th e sugges t ion

in th e FBI Memorandum, we do not be l ieve th e Supremacy Clause o fth e Const i tu t ion can be i n t e rp re t ed to genera l ly confe r au t h o r i t y

upon s t a t e and l o c a l munic ipa l i t i e s to execute f ed e ra l law. Thesupremacy Clause i s not a g ran t of au thor i ty but a p r i n c i p l e t h a tf e de r a l law i s to be complied with , even if in c o n f l i c t with

s t a t e law. See e . g . , Gibbons v . Ogden, 9 Wheat. (22 U.S.) 1 , 210-211 (1824) .

- 4 -



es t ab l i sh ed by the Supreme Court in Flor ida Avocado Growers v.Paul , 373 U.S. 132 (1963) , where it ind ica ted t h a t s t a t eenforcement a c t i v i t i e s were author ized i f they d id no t impai rfede ra l r egu la to ry i n t e re s t s . Using t h i s p r in c ip l e , the NinthCi rcu i t in Gonzales agreed with the p l a i n t i f f s ' as se r t i o n t h a t in

t he con tex t o f the Immigration and Natura l iza t ion Act , it

"assume(d] t h a t the c iv i l provis ions of the Act regUlat ing

author ized en t ry , l eng th of s t ay , res idence s t a tus , and

depor ta t ion , cons t i tu te [d ] such a pervasive regu la to ry scheme, aswould be co n s i s t en t with the exclus ive f edera l power overimmigrat ion." Gonzales, 72 2 F.2d a t 474-475 (emphasis added) .The c o u r t proceeded to di s t ingu i sh the "narrow and d i s t i n c telement" of c r imina l immigration from the "broad" c i v i l elements ,hold ing " t h a t fede ra l law does no t preclude l o ca l enforcement of

t he c r imina l provis ions o f the Act ." Id . a t 475 (emphasisadded) . Furthermore, the cour t noted:

We f i rmly emphasize . . . t h a t t h i sau thor iza t ion ( to enforce the Act] i s l imi ted

to cr imina l v io l a t i o n s . Many of the problemsa r i s i n g from implementat ion of th e Ci t y ' sw r i t t en p o l i c ie s have derived from a f a i l u reto d i s t i n g u i sh between c iv i l and cr imina l

v i o l a t i o n s of the Act. Severa l o f t he po l i cy

s ta tements use th e term " i l l ega l a l i en , "which obscures th e d i s t i n c t io n between th e

c i v i l and th e cr iminal vio la t ions ..•.

There a re numerous reasons why a person couldbe i l l e g a l l y presen t in th e uni ted s t a t e s

without having entered in vio la t ion of

sec t io n 1325. Examples include exp i ra t ion of

a v i s i t o r ' s v i sa , change o f s tuden t s t a tus ,

o r acq u i s i t i o n of p roh ib i ted employment.A r r e s t of a person for i l l ega l presence wouldexceed the au thor i ty gran ted Peor ia pol ice bys t a t e law.

Gonzales , 722 F.2d a t 476 (emphasis added) . We be l i eve t h i sopin ion makes c l e a r t h a t l o ca l pol i ce may enforce cr imina l

v i o l a t i o n s o f th e Immigrat ion and Natura l i za t ion Act . As

discussed below, however, no t a l l warran ts o f depor ta t ion a re

i ssued fo r c r imina l vio la t ions .

The c r i t i c a l even t in the depor ta t ion process i s th e

de po r t a t i on proceeding . This proceeding " is a pure ly c i v i lac t ion to determine e l i g i b i l i t y to remain in t h i s count ry , " INS

v. Lopez-Mendoza, 468 U.S. 1032, 1038 (1983) ; its purpose i s "no t

- 5 -



to punish an unlawful entry... . N Id . 12 The proceeding todetermine depor tab i l i ty i s commenced by the f i l i ng of an Order to

Show Cause with the Off ice of the Immigration Judge, 8 C.F.R.242.1 , who may determine t h a t the a l ien i s depor table only i f " i ti s found by c lear , unequivocal evidence t h a t the f ac t s a l l eged as

grounds fo r depor ta t ion are t rue . " 8 C.F.R. 242.13(a) .13Current ly , there a re nineteen di f fe ren t bases upon which an a l i encan be found to be depor table . 8 U.S.C. 1251(a) . Not a l l of

these bases , however, as th e cour t in Gonzales emphasized, a re

because the a l i en v io la ted a cr iminal law. I4 Thus, the i s suance

12 occas iona l ly , it i s necessary to use a warrant ofa r r e s t , which i s not the same as a warran t of depor ta t ion , tosecure th e at tendance of th e ind iv idua l whose l eg a l presence in

the country i s being chal lenged . See 8 U.S.C. 1252(a) . Whilenot before us , we see no reason why such a r r e s t war ran ts may no tbe placed in the NCIC Wanted Person Fi le .

13 When an a l i en i s determined by an immigrat ion judge to beunlawful ly in the country, "a warran t of depor ta t ion based uponthe f ina l admin i s t ra t ive orde r o f depor ta t ion in the a l i e n ' s cases h a l l be i s sued ." 8 C.F.R. 243.2. In cer ta in circumstances , th ea l i en may reques t a s tay of depor ta t ion , 8 C.F.R. 243.4 , anex tens ion of t ime to depar t , 8 C. F . R . 244 . 2 , o r an adjus tment o fs t a tus to t h a t of a person admit ted fo r permanent re s idence , 8C.F.R. 245. Depending on the grounds upon which an a l i en i sfound to be depor table , however, an a l i en who w i l l f u l l y f a i l s o rre fuses to depar t from the United Sta tes with in s ix months of the

f i n a l orde r o f depor ta t ion s h a l l be gui l ty of a fe lony. 8 U.S.C.1252(e) .

14 sec t ion 1251 of title 8 provides genera l ly fo r th edepor ta t ion o f any a l i en who: (1) a t the t ime of en t ry was amember o f an excludable c l a ss ; (2 ) entered the United St a t e swithout proper i nspec t ion ; (3) within f ive years of en t ry becamei n s t i t u t i o n a l i z e d fo r mental di sease ; (4) with in f ive years o f

en t ry i s convic ted o f a crime of moral tu rp i tude and sen tenced toconfinement fo r a year or more; (5) f a i l s to not i fy wi th in 30days th e proper o f f i c i a l s of a change of address pur suan t t o 8U.S.C. 1305; (6) i s a t any t ime a f t e r en t ry a member o f a c l a s s

o f a l i en s who bel ieve in anarchy, opposi t ion to a l l organized

government, th e Communist Par ty , e t c . , (7) has engaged in

ac t i v i t y pre jud ic i a l to th e na t iona l i n t e r e s t ; (8) in the opinion

of the Attorney General has within f ive year s become a publ i ccharge from causes no t shown to have ar i sen a f t e r en t ry ; (9) wasadmit ted as a nonimmigrant b u t fa i l ed to mainta in t h a t s t a t u s ;(10) i s o r was a drug add ic t a f t e r en t ry o r was convic ted o f

conspiracy to v i o l a t e any s t a t e o r fede ra l la w r e l a t i n g t ocon t ro l led subs tances ; (11) i s a p ro s t i t u t e o r manager of

p r o s t i t u t e s ; (12) has aided th e i l l e g a l en t ry o f anothe r a l i en ;

(cont inued . • • )- 6 -



o f a war ran t o f depor ta t ion does not necessa r i ly i n d i ca t e t h a t ac r i m i na l law has been vio la ted . For example, an a l i en whoses tu d en t s t a tus has changed or whose v i s i t o r ' s vi sa has expired

may be ordered to depar t the country, though he o r she has brokenno c r i m i na l law.

The FBI Memorandum jus t i fy ing the inc lusion of depor ta t ion

war ran t s in the NCIC f i l e placed subs tan t ia l re l iance upon th e

Supreme Co u r t ' s observat ion in INS v. Lopez-Mendoza, 468 U.S.1032 (1983) , t h a t "a depor ta t ion proceeding i s a purely c i v i lac t io n to determine e l i g i b i l i t y to remain in t h i s count ry .though en te r in g or remaining unlawful ly in t h i s count ry i s i t s e l fa cr ime . 8 U.S.C. sec t ions 1302, 1306, 1325." Lopez-Mendoza, a t1038. Late r , t he major i ty s t a t ed t h a t "Sandoval-Sanchez i s aperson whose unreg i s t e red presence in t h i s count ry , wi thout more,c o n s t i t u t e s a cr ime." Id . , a t 1047. Carefu l examinat ion of th e

s t a t u t o ry prov i s ions c i t ed in Lopez-Mendoza does r evea l t h a t th e

a l i en in t h a t case had committed a crime by being unreg i s t e red .

But as di scussed below, we do not be l ieve t h a t t he Cour t ' s

s t a t ement s can be read t o c l a ss i fy a l l a l i en s sub j e c t to

d ep o r t a t i o n as c r imina l s .

Sec t ion 1325 o f title 8, the f i r s t provis ion c i t ed in LopezMendoza, provides in par t :

Any a l i en who (1) en te r s the un i t ed Sta t e s a tany t ime or p lace othe r than as designated byimmigrat ion o f f i ce r s , o r (2 ) eludes

examinat ion o r inspect ion by immigrat iono f f i c e r s , o r (3) obta ins en t ry to the UnitedS t a t e s by a wi l l fu l l y fa l se o r mislead ing

r ep resen ta t i o n . sha l l be g u i l t y o f a

[c r ime] •

This sec t io n makes c l e a r t h a t it i s in fac t a crime t o en t e r th e

u n i t ed St a t e s i l l e g a l l y . Many a l i ens who may be l awfu l ly ordered

14( ... cont inued)

(13) has been convic ted for possess ion o f a f i rearm; (14) i sconvic ted wi th in f ive years o f entry fo r vio la t ing title I o f th e

Alien Reg i s t r a t i o n Act , 1940; (15) i s convic ted twice of

v i o l a t i n g title I of th e Alien Regis t ra t ion Act , 1940; (16) th e

Attorney Genera l f inds to be an undes i r ab le r e s id en t because o f

s t a t u t o r i l y sp ec i f i ed reasons ; (17) i s convic ted of impor t ing

a l i ens fo r immoral purposes in v io l a t i o n o f 8 U.S.C. 1328; (18)was as so c i a t ed with th e Nazi government o f Germany; o r (19) hasobta ined th e s t a t u s o f an a l i en lawful ly admit ted fo r temporaryre s idence b u t who fa i l ed to meet the requi rement t h a t he o r sheprove to th e Attorney Genera l t h a t they provided 90 man-days o f

seasona l a g r i c u l t u r a l se rv i ce within a sp ec i f i ed t ime per iod , 8U.S.C. 1161(d) (5) (A).

- 7 -



t o d ep a r t , however, have not vio la ted sec t ion 1325. These a l i ens

may be def ined as those who en te r the count ry Jawful ly bu t who

fo r one of the reasons provided in sec t ion 1251 may,never the less , be depor ted . Similar ly , the reg i s t ra t ionprov i s ions o f sec t ions 1302 and 1306, also c i t ed by th e major i ty

in Lopez-Mendoza, a l so f a i l to es tab l i sh t h a t a l l a l i en s su b j ec tto depor ta t ion a re c r imina l s . sec t ion 1306 provides in p a r t t h a t

"any a l i en r equ i r ed to apply fo r r eg i s t r a t i o n ... who w i l l fu l l yf a i l s o r re fuses to make such appl ica t ion ... s h a l l be gui l tyof a [c r ime] . " 8 U.S.C. 1306(a) . Sect ion 1302, in t u rn , def ines

who must reg i s t e r :

it s h a l l be the duty of every a l i en now or

h e rea f t e r in th e uni ted s t a t e s , who (1) i sfour teen yea r s of age or older , (2) has no t

r eg i s t e red [p rev ious ly] , and (3) remains inth e United Sta t e s fo r th i r ty days o r longer ,

to apply fo r r eg i s t r a t i o n and to be

f ingerpr in ted before the expi ra t ion o f such

t h i r t y days .

8 U.S.C. 1302(a) . The pla in language o f t hese p rov i s ions makesc l e a r t h a t sec t io n s 1302 and 1306 do no t provide a b as i s fo r

concluding t h a t a l l a l i en s in th i s count ry who may be ordered todepar t have committed a cr iminal o f fense . Indeed , some a l i en s

who have been l awfu l ly ordered to depar t have complied with t hese

r e g i s t r a t i o n requirements . Thus, t h i s Off ice bel ieves t h a t themere ex i s t ence of a warran t o f depor ta t ion fo r an a l i en does no t

provide SUf f i c i e n t probable cause to conclude t h a t th e c r imina l

prov i s ions c i t ed by th e Court in Lopez-Mendoza, o r o t h e r s , havein f a c t been v i o l a t ed . 15 Unlike the more sweeping c l a s s o f

a l i e n s sub j e c t to a warrant of depor ta t ion , t he ma jor i ty

concluded t h a t th e a l i en in Lopez-Mendoza had f a i l ed t o r e g i s t e ras requ i red and may" t h e re fo re , have committed a c r i m i na l

of fense . 16

15 In d i ssen t , ' Ju s t i ce White even dispu ted th e m a j o r i t y ' s

conc lus ion with r e sp ec t to Sandoval-Sanchez, not ing t h a t

"cont ra ry to th e view o f the major i ty , it i s not t he case t h a tSandoval -Sanchez ' ' un reg is te red presence in t h i s count ry , wi thout

more, co n s t i t u t e s a cr ime ' . . w Lopez-Mendoza, 468 U.S. a t1056. In t h i s rega rd , Ju s t i ce White noted t h a t f a i l u r e tor e g i s t e r i s only a cr ime under sec t ion 1306 if th e f a i l u r e wasw i l l fu l .

16 The only o th e r b as i s fo r be l iev ing genera l ly t h a t a l i en s

have commit ted a c r imina l of fense i s 8 U.S.C. 1326, whichp ro h i b i t s t h e r een t ry i n t o th e United s t a t e s o f any a l i e n

prev ious ly depor ted . As with th e provis ions c i t ed p rev io u s ly ,

t h e c l a ss o f a l i en s who a re depor table i s not coterminous with

(cont inued • • . )- 8 -



Las t l y , we note t h a t the continued presence in t he un i t eds t a t e s o f an a l ien who has been ordered to depar t does no t ,

wi thou t more, cons t i tu te a criminal offense . only in th eci rcumstances descr ibed in 8 U.S.C. 1252(e) does an a l i en commit

a c r im ina l of fense by remaining in th i s count ry beyond th e da t e

ordered for depor tat ion . That sect ion provides t ha t a l i ens whohave been ordered to depar t for cer ta in of the reasons spec i f i ed

i n sec t ion 1251 C O I T ~ i t a felony by wi l l fu l ly f a i l i n ~ o r re fus ingto depa r t within s ix months of the order to do s o . l Theex i s t ence of a warran t of deporta t ion fo r a l i ens found to havev io l a t ed t hese pa r t i cu la r provis ions of sec t ion 1251, however,does no t subs tan t i a l ly prove t ha t the cr iminal provis ion in

sec t ion 1252(e) has been vio la ted . Not only may th e warran t o f

depor t a t i on be i ssued within s ix months of th e order to depa r t ,which would be before sec t ion 1252(e) could be v io la ted , b u t evenif i s sued more than s ix months af t e r th e order , th e warran t w i l l

n o t i nd ica te whether th e f a i lu r e to depar t was "w i l l f u l , " a l so apre requ i s i t e to f ind ing a sec t ion 1252(e) v i o l a t i o n .

Because 8 U.S.C. 1251 makes c lea r t h a t an a l i en who hasl awful ly entered th i s count ry , lawful ly r eg i s t e r ed , and who hasv io l a t ed no cr iminal s ta tu te may still be depor ted fo r

noncompliance with noncr iminal o r c i v i l immigrat ion prov i s ions ,

th e mere ex i s t ence o f a warran t of depor tat ion does no t enab le

a l l s t a t e and l oca l la w enforcement of f i ce r s t o a r r e s t th ev i o l a t o r of those c i v i l provis ions . I t fol lows from t h i s t h a tth e FBI, under i t s cur rent pol icy , may not au tomat i ca l ly inc lude

in th e NCIC Wanted Person Fi le the names o f a l i ens Who a re th e

sub jec t of a warran t of depor tat ion .

We do bel ieve t h a t th e FBI may include in the NCIC Fi l e

t hose a l i ens who are the subjec t of a warran t o f depor t a t i onwhere they are found by an immigration judge to have v io l a t ed acr imina l provis ion of the Immigration and Natura l iza t ion Act .Again, t h i s i s because cour t s have determined t h a t v i o l a t o r s o ffedera l cr imina l law may be arres ted by l oca l , s t a t e , and federa llaw enforcement of f i ce r s . 18 The i ssuance by an immigrat ion judge

16( • . . continued)t hose who have vio la ted t h i s cr iminal prov i s ion .

17 Aliens ordered to depar t for having v io la ted 8 U.S.C.1251(4) - (7 ) , (11), (12), (14)-(17) , (18) or (19) and who havew i l l f u l l y refused to do so fo r s ix months, commit a fe lony. 8U.S.C. 1252(e ) .

18 See e . g . United s t a t e s v. Di Re, 332 U.S. 581, 589(1947) (" in absence o f an appl icable federa l s t a t u t e th e law o f

(cont inued ... )- 9 -



of a warrant of depor tat ion fo r such v io la to r s , which has , bys t a tu to ry command, been based on wreasonable, s u b s t a n t i a l , and

probat ive evidence ," 8 U.S.C. l252{b) (4) , provides lawenforcement o f f i c i a l s with th e probable cause necessary to make

th e a r r e s t . Thus, we bel ieve t ha t th e narrower ca tegory o f

a l i ens found in v io la t ion o f federal cr iminal law and sub jec t toa r r e s t by a l l law enforcement of f i c i a l s may be en tered in to th e

NCIC wanted Person Fi l e in accordance with FBI po l i cy .

I I I . Conclusion

For th e foregoing reasons , th is Off ice concludes t h a t th e

FB I may not , pursuant to i t s establ i shed po l i cy , en te r i n to th e

NCIC Wanted Person Fi le persons sub jec t to warran t s o f

depor t a t ion unless th e warran t per t a ins to persons wh o a re in

v i o l a t i o n of a f ed e r a l cr iminal provis ion .

Please l e t me know if we can be of fu r the r a s s i s t a n c e .

18 { ... cont inued)

,

ie c

Attorney Genera lof Legal Counsel

th e s t a t e where an a r r e s t without warrant t akes p l ace determines

i t s val id i tyW); U.S. -v. Bowdach, 561 F.2d 1160, 1168 (5 th Cir .

1977) (Wstate law enforcement of f ice rs have th e power to a r r e s tc i t i zens fo r cr imes aga ins t the United s t a t e s , and t h i s would bees pec i a l l y t r ue when th e s t a t e of f i ce r s have knowledge of th e

f ac t t h a t th e person being ar res ted i s wanted by th e f ede ra l

au tho r i t i e s and t h a t a f edera l a r r e s t warran t has been i s sued fo r

t h a t pe r s on ' s a r r e s t . W) . Moreover, f ede ra l au thor i ty e x i s t s fo r

cer t a in s t a t e and l oca l pa r t i c ipa t ion in th e enforcement o f

f ede ra l cr iminal s t a t u t e s . See 18 U.S.C. 3041.We

have n o texplored here in whether th e making of an a r r e s t by a s t a t e lawenforcement o f f i c e r under th e author i ty of s t a t e law bu t premisedupon a p r i o r f ed e r a l determinat ion t h a t such person i s in

v io la t ion of a f ede ra l cr iminal s t a tu t e cou ld ever be sa id to runafou l of th e Appointments Clause . Art . I I , sec . 2, c l . 2. SeeBuckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 26 (1976) .

- 10 -

doj olc memo re handling of ins warrants of deportation in relation to ncic wanted person file...

Documents