Browse cases by category
- Attorneys & Legal Services
- Bankruptcy
- Civil Procedure & Administrative Law
- Civil Rights
- Consumer
- Criminal
- Disability
- Economic Development
- Education
- Elections
- Employment
- Environmental Justice
- Evidence
- Family Law
- Food Programs
- Government and Governmental Services
- Guardianship & Conservatorship
- Health
- Housing
- Immigration
- Juveniles
- License (Auto & Others)
- Mental Health
- Migrants
- Native Americans
- Other
- Prisons
- Public Utilities & Energy
- Rural Issues
- Senior Citizens
- Social Security & SSI
- Taxation
- Torts
- Unemployment Compensation & Unemployment Insurance
- Veterans & Military
- Welfare
- Wills & Estates
- Workforce Development
Carrasca v. Pomeroy
313 F.3d 828 (3d Cir. 2002) ; Clearinghouse Number: 55092
Description
Third Circuit Denies Park Rangers Summary Judgment in Mexican Farmworkers’ Racial Profiling Case
Abstract
The Third Circuit overturned the trial court’s summary
judgment for defendants, former New Jersey park rangers, in a
racial profiling case brought by four Mexican farmworkers.
Plaintiffs were arrested, detained for several hours, and
handcuffed to chairs after they were caught swimming in a state
park after hours. Defendants also searched and impounded
plaintiffs’ car and asked for their green cards. Plaintiffs
alleged that one of defendants commented derogatorily on
plaintiffs’ ethnicity. During the detention one of the
rangers contacted the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service
several times. None of the white swimmers was arrested. Plaintiffs
sued under Section 1983 charging violation of their federal equal
protection and Fourth Amendment rights and under state statutes
guaranteeing equal protection and barring conspiracy to deprive
civil rights. Defendants maintained that plaintiffs swam in
underwear or clothing and remained in the lake after repeated
instruction to exit and after the other swimmers left the water.
These factors and plaintiffs’ failure to produce green cards
justified their arrest and detention, defendants claimed. The Third
Circuit found material the discrepancies between the parties’
versions of events. The trial court failed to view the evidence in
a light most favorable to the plaintiffs, and, when viewed in this
light, the evidence was sufficient to survive summary judgment, the
Third Circuit found. The Third circuit also rejected the trial
court’s holding that the rangers had qualified immunity; it
found that questions remained regarding the reasonableness of the
rangers’ actions.
