## Facts

- Farm Labor Organizing Committee (FLOC) and two Hispanic lawful permanent residents, Jose Aguilar and Irma Esparza, sued the Ohio State Highway Patrol (OSHP) and Trooper Kevin Kiefer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging race- or national-origin-based traffic enforcement and related constitutional violations.
- On March 26, 1995, Aguilar and Esparza were driving in Ohio when Kiefer stopped them for a faulty headlight.
- Kiefer placed Aguilar in the back of his cruiser; a second cruiser arrived, and a drug-sniffing dog conducted a sweep and “alerted.”
- A second trooper asked Esparza for identification; when she offered an Illinois identification card, the trooper took her wallet and removed her permanent resident card.
- Esparza was placed in the cruiser with Aguilar; Kiefer demanded Aguilar’s permanent resident card, which was valid.
- Kiefer asked whether they had “paid for” their green cards; due to limited English proficiency, they understood the question as asking whether they paid required fees and answered yes.
- Kiefer kept both green cards and released the plaintiffs without issuing a citation.
- The plaintiffs could not recover their green cards for four days after contacting an attorney.
- Plaintiffs alleged the stop and immigration questioning reflected a broader OSHP pattern of stopping Hispanic motorists and seizing immigration documents based on race or national origin.

## Issues

1. Whether Trooper Kiefer was entitled to qualified immunity on an Equal Protection claim alleging he targeted the plaintiffs for immigration questioning solely because of their race or national origin.
2. Whether Trooper Kiefer was entitled to qualified immunity on a Fourth Amendment claim that retaining valid green cards for four days after the stop was an unreasonable seizure.
3. Whether partial summary judgment on Fourth Amendment liability was proper where undisputed facts showed a four-day retention of valid green cards without lawful justification.

## Decision

- The Sixth Circuit affirmed the denial of qualified immunity to Kiefer on the Equal Protection claim.
- The Sixth Circuit affirmed the denial of qualified immunity to Kiefer on the Fourth Amendment unreasonable-seizure claim.
- The Sixth Circuit affirmed partial summary judgment for Aguilar and Esparza on Fourth Amendment liability for the four-day retention of their green cards.
- The case was remanded for further proceedings (including issues such as damages and remaining claims).

## Legal Principles

- Selective law enforcement based on race or national origin violates the Equal Protection Clause; a plaintiff must show discriminatory purpose and discriminatory effect.
- For qualified immunity, an officer is not protected where the alleged conduct violates clearly established constitutional rights that a reasonable officer would have known.
- Retaining identification documents constitutes a Fourth Amendment seizure; the seizure’s scope and duration must be reasonable.
- Continued retention of valid identification after the basis for a traffic stop ends requires independent lawful justification; absent such justification, prolonged retention is unreasonable.
- At summary judgment, courts view disputed facts and reasonable inferences in the nonmovant’s favor when assessing qualified immunity and constitutional claims.

## Conclusion

The Sixth Circuit held that, on the plaintiffs’ account of events, a reasonable officer would have known it was unconstitutional to single out Hispanic motorists for immigration questioning solely based on race or national origin, and that keeping valid green cards for four days without lawful justification was an unreasonable Fourth Amendment seizure; accordingly, the officer was not entitled to qualified immunity, and plaintiffs were entitled to partial summary judgment on Fourth Amendment liability for the document retention.


Farm Labor Organizing Comm. v. Ohio State Highway Patrol, 308 F.3d 523 (6th Cir. 2002)