holding that the "entry fiction" applies to preclude illegal aliens' Fourth Amendment detention claims
How later courts described this case
- holding that the "entry fiction" applies to preclude illegal aliens' Fourth Amendment detention claims
- noting that Johnson “reject[ed] extraterritorial application of the Fifth Amendment”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
STEWART, Chief Judge,
concurring in the judgment.
I concur in the judgment only. The majority opinion addresses: (1) whether the Fourth Amendment applies to these detainees because they are not U.S. citizens; and (2) whether Cabrera enjoys qualified immunity if some of the detainees are U.S. citizens. This case raises important issues regarding the constitutional rights of detainees at the border. However, the record and the briefing in this case *603 is less than clear on the issue of the detainees’ citizenship and how this affects the Fourth Amendment analysis. I agree with the majority, as discussed in Part IV of the opinion, that Cabrera is entitled to qualified immunity. Because of the lack of clarity and sharpness in the development of the constitutional issue by the parties, I would affirm the district court’s dismissal solely on the basis of Cabrera’s qualified immunity.