it had “authority to stop moving vehicles and question the occupants about their citizenship, even when its officers have no reason to believe that the occupants are aliens or that other aliens may be concealed in the vehicle.” Id. at 877, 95 S.Ct. 2574. The Supreme Court rejected the government’s argument. The Court stated that, just as in the criminal context, an immigration officer “must have a reasonable ) (noting that detention to inquire about an individual’s immigration status is “a seizure and implicate[s] the [Fjourth [Ajmendment” (citing Immigration & Naturalization Serv. v. Delgado, 466 U.S. 210, 216-17, 104 S.Ct. 1758, 80 L.Ed.2d 247 (1984); Terry, 392 U.S. at 21, 88 S.Ct. 1868)); Navia-Duran v. Immigration & Naturalization Serv., 568 F.2d 803, 809 n. 7 (1st Cir.1977) (<HOLDING>). It was thus clearly established well before
holding that reasonable suspicion justifies an investigatory detention holding that probable cause is a complete defense to an action for false arrest recognizing that an immigration arrest and detention needs to be supported by probable cause or reasonable suspicion holding that under fourth amendment standards for determining probable cause for arrest and probable cause for search and seizure are same holding in the alternative that even if handcuffing a suspect did convert the detention into an arrest the arrest was justified by probable cause