# Mario Gonzalez-Rivera v. Immigration & Naturalization Service

> Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · April 28, 1994 · 22 F.3d 1441

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9486693

## Case

- **Full name:** Mario GONZALEZ-RIVERA, Petitioner, v. IMMIGRATION & NATURALIZATION SERVICE, Respondent
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
- **Decided:** April 28, 1994
- **Citations:** 22 F.3d 1441; 94 Daily Journal DAR 5706; 94 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 2963; 1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 9005
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Tang
- **Judges:** Choy, Tang, Nelson
- **Cited by:** 106 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9486693

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that a reasonable officer should have known a stop based solely on a person's Hispanic appearance was unconstitutional because "the [stop] occurred long after the Supreme Court ... made clear that the Constitution does not permit such stops"
- holding that bor- der officers violated the Fourth Amendment rights of defen- dant by stopping him because of his Hispanic appearance, thereby triggering exclusionary rule in a civil proceeding
- holding that border officers violated the Fourth Amendment rights of defendant by stopping him because of his Hispanic appearance, thereby triggering exclusionary rule in a civil proceeding

## Opinion text

TANG, Senior Circuit Judge,
concurring:
I concur fully in Judge Nelson’s opinion. I write separately to emphasize that we should not allow our courts to be used to sanction racism in any form. The Supreme Court recognized in Shelley v. Kraemer, 334 U.S. 1 , 68 S.Ct. 836 , 92 L.Ed. 1161 (1948), that court enforcement of discriminatory covenants was state action subject to the dictates of the Fourteenth Amendment. Allowing the Immigration Service to utilize evidence obtained from racially discriminatory treatment of Hispanics would entail our participation in that discrimination.
The exclusionary rule here serves the essential function of preserving judicial integrity. Elkins v. United States, 364 U.S. 206, 222 , 80 S.Ct. 1437, 1443 , 4 L.Ed.2d 1669 (1960). Where federal agents violate the Fourth Amendment in bad faith by stopping a person solely based on race, judicial integrity would be impaired by allowing the introduction of evidence obtained by racially discriminatory action. “Federal courts cannot countenance deliberate violations of basic constitutional rights. To do so would violate our judicial oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States.” Adamson v. C.I.R., 745 F.2d 541, 546 (9th Cir.1984).

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9486693. Public record. Not legal advice.