Background
Juan Ramon Hernandez-Limon appealed his conviction and eighteen-month sentence for illegally reentering the United States. He argued that the district court erred in denying his motion to dismiss the indictment because the government’s conduct was outrageous and violated his due process rights. The incident involved federal agents arriving at his home with an administrative warrant, attempting to negotiate his surrender, and eventually deploying forceful tactics including an armored vehicle, a robot, plastic rounds, and flash-bang grenades after he attempted to flee and hide.
The court’s reasoning
The court reviewed de novo whether the indictment must be dismissed for a due process violation. It stated that the standard for proving outrageous governmental conduct is extremely demanding and that misconduct only mandates dismissal if it is so outrageous that it violates the principle of fundamental fairness. The court found that the agents faced a noncompliant individual with a prior firearms conviction who was evading capture. The court noted that the agents escalated tactics to make an arrest for which they had a warrant and took steps to avoid causing injury. The court distinguished the case from Rochin v. California, concluding that the conduct here did not shock the conscience.
The standard for proving outrageous governmental conduct is extremely demanding.
United States v. Sandlin, 589 F.3d 749, 758 (5th Cir. 2009)
What it means going forward
The decision reinforces that the use of aggressive, military-style tactics during an arrest, even in a residential setting, will not typically constitute outrageous governmental conduct sufficient to dismiss an indictment unless the conduct is truly shocking to the conscience.