Summary by Grok

Case Summary: Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Delgado, 466 U.S. 210 (1984) Citation: 466 U.S. 210 (1984)
Court: Supreme Court of the United States
Decided: April 17, 1984

Vote: 7–2

Opinion: Rehnquist, J. (majority); Brennan, J. (dissenting, joined by Marshall, J.)

Facts
  • INS agents, with factory owners' consent, conducted "factory surveys" at two garment factories in Southern California to locate undocumented workers.
  • Agents positioned themselves near exits and, while other agents moved through the workforce questioning employees about citizenship, asked some workers (including respondents, U.S. citizens or lawful residents) for immigration papers.
  • Respondents sued under the Fourth Amendment, claiming the surveys constituted seizures of the entire workforce because workers felt unable to leave during questioning.
Procedural History
  • District Court granted summary judgment for INS.
  • Ninth Circuit reversed, holding the surveys seized the entire workforce without individualized suspicion, violating the Fourth Amendment.
Issue:

Whether INS factory surveys, conducted with employer consent and involving questioning of workers about immigration status, constitute a Fourth Amendment "seizure" of the entire workforce when workers are not physically restrained and are free to walk away from individual questioning.

Holding: No. The surveys did not effect a Fourth Amendment seizure of the entire workforce. Individual questioning required reasonable suspicion only for those workers who were detained beyond consensual encounters; mere questioning and the presence of agents near exits did not seize workers who continued their activities.

Rule/Reasoning
  • A Fourth Amendment "seizure" requires either physical force or submission to an assertion of authority (Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968); United States v. Mendenhall, 446 U.S. 544 (1980)).
  • Police questioning, by itself, is not a seizure. Workers were:
    • Free to continue working;
    • Not prevented from moving within the factory;
    • Able to ignore or walk away from agents (though some chose to answer).
  • The atmosphere (agents at exits, employer consent) was not coercive enough to convert consensual encounters into seizures for the workforce as a whole.
  • For workers actually detained for further questioning, INS needed articulable suspicion (which existed here based on appearance, responses, or behavior).
  • Employer consent distinguished the case from public street encounters.
Disposition Reversed the Ninth Circuit and remanded.

Concurrence
  • Powell, J.: Emphasized employer consent and the limited intrusiveness of workplace surveys.
  • Blackmun, J.: Joined majority but noted future surveys might require warrants if more intrusive.
Dissent (Brennan, J.)
  • The surveys created a coercive environment: armed agents at exits, systematic questioning, and workers' fear of job loss effectively seized everyone.
  • Compared the factory to a "locked compound," rejecting the majority's "consensual encounter" framing.
Significance
  • Clarified that workplace immigration surveys with employer consent do not automatically trigger Fourth Amendment protections for all employees.
  • Reinforced Mendenhall's "free to leave" test for seizures.
  • Limited Terry-stop requirements to actual detentions, not mere questioning.
  • Frequently cited in workplace search and border patrol contexts.