Manzp-Jurado

ORDER AMENDING OPINION AND AMENDED OPINION

ORDER

The disposition filed on June 20, 2006 and available at 452 F.3d 1028 , 2006 WL 1679413 is AMENDED as follows. At page 2, note 3 of the opinion, the following sentence shall be deleted in its entirety:

At page 2, note 3 of the disposition, the following sentences shall be inserted to replace the deleted sentence:

With this amendment, a majority of the panel votes to deny the petition for rehearing. Judge Gould votes to grant the petition for rehearing.

Appellant United States’ petition for rehearing is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

OPINION

We revisit the important issue of when information available to officers creates a reasonable suspicion that an individual is in the United States illegally so as to justify an investigatory stop. Given the particular facts of this case — individuals’ appearance as a Hispanic work crew, inability to speak English, proximity to the border, and unsuspicious behavior — law enforcement lacked reasonable suspicion that Appellant and his co-workers were in this country illegally.

I.

On November 20, 2004, Manzo-Jurado and five of his co-workers attended the high school football state championship…

dissenting:

The majority opinion concludes that the factors at issue in this case did not give a particularized and objective basis for the agents’ reasonable suspicion that any member of Manzo-Jurado’s group was an illegal immigrant, and thus that the temporary seizure of the vehicle and questioning of its occupants was unconstitutional. However, our assessment of whether a detaining officer has such a basis must take into consideration the officer’s infer- *941 enees from the information available to him or her, even when those inferences might elude a person without similar experience and training. See United States v. Arizu, 534 U.S. 266, 274 , 122 S.Ct. 744 , 151 L.Ed.2d 740 (2002); United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U.S. 873, 885 , 95 S.Ct. 2574 , 45 L.Ed.2d 607 (1975). I view the Supreme Court’s language in Arvizu to require some degree of deference to the skilled judgment of immigration officials.

In light of this, although it may be a close case, I would hold that the agents’ familiarity with the Havre community; their observation of a group of Hispanic-looking men at a football game who appeared to be a work-crew and were speaking only to each other, and only in…

FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,  No. 05-30186 Plaintiff-Appellee, v.  D.C. No.

CR-04-00169-SEH

SERGIO MANZO-JURADO,

OPINION

Defendant-Appellant.  Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Montana Sam E. Haddon, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted April 5, 2006—Seattle, Washington

Filed June 20, 2006

Before: William C. Canby, Jr., Ronald M. Gould, and Carlos T. Bea, Circuit Judges.

Opinion by Judge Bea; Dissent by Judge Gould COUNSEL

Anthony R. Gallagher, Assistant Federal Defender, Federal Defenders of Montana, Great Falls, Montana, for the defendant-appellant.

William W. Mercer, United States Attorney, and Elizabeth Horman, Assistant United States Attorney, United States Attorney’s Office, Helena, Montana, for the plaintiff-appellee.

OPINION

BEA, Circuit Judge:

We revisit the important issue of when information avail- able to officers creates a reasonable suspicion that an individ- ual is in the United States illegally so as to justify an investigatory stop. Given the particular facts of this case—…