Attorneys: Helena man unlawfully detained due to racial profiling
In a federal district court hearing, attorneys for Christoper Martinez Marvan petitioned for his release, while lawyers representing the government argued his detainment was legal.
Hey savvy news reader! Thanks for choosing local.
You are now reading
1 of 3 free articles.
MISSOULA — Attorneys for a Helena man detained by immigration officers last week argued during a hearing in federal district court Thursday that he should be released because racial profiling led to his arrest.
Helena police and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers were searching for two Venezuelan men with outstanding warrants when they pulled over Christopher Martinez Marvan, a Mexican national, in early July. The 31-year-old did not have any warrants for his arrest.
Attorneys representing the federal government said during the hearing that Judge Dana Christensen does not have jurisdiction over the case, which should be moved to immigration court. Christensen did not rule Thursday.
According to newly released recordings of the traffic stop, officers tracked Martinez Marvan’s vehicle for several minutes before pulling him over. In body camera footage recorded by Helena Police Officer Seth Montgomery, the officer can be heard telling Martinez Marvan that he stopped him because of expired license plates. Other video footage shows Martinez Marvan being questioned by federal officers.
Montgomery’s body camera footage further records another Helena police officer, Andrew Barton, saying, “Yeah, he’s like, he’s being kidnapped right now.” Montgomery responded, “OK. Good enough for me,” before the body footage cuts off. In a statement to Montana Free Press, Police Chief Brett Petty said that he was “incredibly disappointed” with the comment.
“We want to assure the public that any statements or actions that are insensitive or unprofessional are taken seriously and are subject to internal review,” Petty said.
Rylee Sommers-Flanagan, executive director of Upper Seven Law, said during a Thursday press conference that members of the Helena community on July 1 alerted the nonprofit law firm of Martinez Marvan’s detention. Attorneys contacted Martinez Marvan’s wife and went to the Lewis and Clark County jail but were not allowed to meet with him, Sommers-Flanagan said. Concerned he would be transported out of state, Upper Seven subsequently filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus requesting he be released.
Martinez Marvan was taken to a Customs and Border Patrol station and then to the Cascade County Detention Center in Great Falls, where he has been since, according to court documents. Upper Seven attorneys met with him for the first time on Monday, said Molly Danahy, the firm’s litigation director.
During the Thursday hearing, Danahy told the judge the case is a “straightforward question of constitutional law.” Danahy said the traffic stop violated the Fourth Amendment because the officers stopped Martinez Marvan because of his Latino heritage, like the other men they were searching for. Although Helena police found that his vehicle registration had expired, that occurred after federal officers ordered the stop, Danahy said.
Christensen questioned if he had jurisdiction over the matter, particularly given a warrant for arrest and notice to appear in immigration court that federal authorities submitted to the court on Thursday.
Danahy argued that the federal district court has jurisdiction because the petition is challenging the legality of Martinez Marvan’s detention, independent of any removal proceedings in immigration court.
While U.S. immigration law allows for a review of claims, it is too late in the process to provide an acceptable substitute to habeas corpus because someone could be detained indefinitely waiting for proceedings, Danahy said.
Christensen asked what would happen if he orders Martinez Marvan’s release, given that he is subject to removal proceedings.
Danahy said that Martinez Marvan does not have to be detained during those proceedings because he was not detained for criminal activity, and that he can raise the same Fourth Amendment claims in immigration court. Danahy also asked the judge to order that any evidence recovered during the “unlawful” stop cannot be used to immediately re-detain Martinez Marvan.
“What we have here is a person subject to unconstitutional racial profiling,” she said. “It would contravene the Fourth Amendment and habeas corpus to have him released only to be scooped upon the same evidence from an unlawful stop.”
Assistant U.S. Attorney Ryan Weldon argued the court did not have jurisdiction over the case, and even if it did, Martinez Marvan is not being detained illegally.
Weldon said the traffic stop was valid based on the expired registration of the truck Martinez Marvan was driving. Weldon likened the situation to cases where federal agents will use traffic stops for speeding or expired registration to pull over people suspected of drug trafficking.
Martinez Marvan was previously removed from the United States several times and unsuccessfully applied to enter the country twice, according to the government’s response to the petition.
The warrant for Martinez Marvan’s arrest based on his immigration status, submitted to the court Thursday, further justifies his detention, Weldon said. If the case were moved to immigration court, Martinez Marvan could question the constitutionality of the traffic stop there, Weldon said.
“Mr. Martinez will have his day in court, but that is not in this court,” he said.
In a brief rebuttal, Danahy echoed her earlier arguments, stressing that by the time Martinez Marvan gets to the judicial review of the final order for removal, the court is “powerless to provide a remedy for detention up until that point.” The immigration warrant doesn’t strip the court of jurisdiction to hear a habeas corpus claim, Danahy said.
Christensen said he will make a decision quickly, but he gave no other indication of a timeline. Until the ruling, Martinez Marvan will remain in custody but should not be “removed from the country,” Christensen said.
Before and after the hearing, Martinez Marvan greeted his wife, Maria Pacheco, and four children. Danahy said it was the first time he had seen them since his July 1 detention.
In an interview outside the courtroom, Pacheco said she didn’t feel much resolution.
“In the beginning, before we came, I felt really anxious. I still feel anxious,” Pacheco said. She said she plans to meet with lawyers to discuss next steps.
“It’s just heartbreaking to see him go away in handcuffs and not be able to come home,” Pacheco said.
About 45 people attended the hearing in support of Martinez Marvan. The group consisted mainly of Missoulians, though several attendees drove from Helena.
Between two trees situated across from the courthouse, Missoulian Josh Decker strung a banner, reading “abolish ICE.”
“The detainment of Christopher in Helena — and his federal arraignment today — are times when our community needs to step forward and say that we are unambiguously against this type of policing in our communities,” Decker said in an interview outside the courthouse.
Velma Simon, of Helena, protested Martinez Marvan’s July 1 arrest in Helena before traveling to Missoula to attend the hearing. Simon said she is continuing to lobby against ICE’s more aggressive activities.
“We don’t want our tax dollars going to this,” Simon said.
Sommers-Flanagan with Upper Seven said after the hearing that her client’s detention is consistent with the Trump administration’s immigration priorities “to target people ubiquitously, regardless of criminal records, and oftentimes without a lot of consideration for the reasons why it might be important to ascertain their identity and look for legitimate reasons to remove them from the country.”
News sources and statistical analysis show people who are being detained by the administration are largely those without criminal records, Sommers-Flanagan said.
“Christopher is one of those people,” she said. “He does not have a criminal record. When he encountered the ICE agents in Helena, he did not have a warrant out for his arrest. They were not looking for Christopher. And I think what’s really important to understand when we are thinking about these issues is that this is a somewhat unprecedented moment for courts because they are faced with new questions, and they need to have an opportunity to consider these questions really thoroughly. So we hope that’s what the court will be able to do as well.”
Zeke Lloyd contributed reporting.
