Leidy Almeida Guarnizo, a Colombian citizen who entered the U.S. on a tourist visa in May 2021, was arrested during a traffic stop in Orlando on March 19, 2026, after Border Patrol agents questioned her immigration status. Agents detained Guarnizo for several hours before obtaining an arrest warrant at 12:11 PM that same day and issuing her a notice to appear in removal proceedings. During the stop, Guarnizo provided agents with paperwork showing a pending asylum claim, a Florida driver's license, social security card, and work permit.
Judge Steele concluded that immigration authorities lacked statutory authority to conduct the arrest under two separate legal theories. "Because Respondents arrested Petitioner nearly two weeks before issuing his notice to appear, they lacked statutory authority to arrest Petitioner, as removal proceedings were not pending against him at that time," the judge wrote, citing the requirement under 8 U.S.C. § 1226 that arrest warrants be issued only after removal proceedings begin.
The court delivered particularly sharp criticism of the government's failure to assess whether Guarnizo posed a flight risk before conducting the warrantless arrest. "Respondents have not offered any evidence to suggest that they indeed considered whether Petitioner was likely to flee," Steele wrote, noting that Guarnizo "at no point during this encounter did Petitioner attempt to flee" and had demonstrated significant ties to the community including employment as an insurance agent and Lyft driver, two minor children, and no criminal history.
The case arose from Guarnizo's habeas corpus petition challenging her detention under both the Fourth and Fifth Amendments. Immigration authorities initially argued she was properly detained under § 1226, which governs detention of noncitizens already present in the United States, rather than § 1225, which applies to expedited removal of recent border crossers. The government conceded that Guarnizo, who had lived in the U.S. for nearly five years, was not eligible for expedited removal.
Judge Steele rejected the government's contention that agents feared Guarnizo would escape if they sought a warrant first. Federal regulations permit warrantless immigration arrests only when officers "have reason to believe that the [noncitizen] so arrested is in the United States in violation of [federal immigration] law ... and is likely to escape before a warrant can be obtained," the judge explained. The government "introduced no evidence and, as such, failed to establish that they had reason to believe Petitioner was 'likely to escape before a warrant [could] be obtained for [her] arrest.'"
The ruling appears part of a broader trend of federal judges scrutinizing immigration detention practices, with Steele citing several recent cases from other districts reaching similar conclusions about warrant requirements. The judge noted that immigration authorities may have been following "agency guidance requiring Border Patrol agents to detain all persons who are suspected of being '[p]resent without [a]dmission or [p]arole,'" but emphasized that such guidance cannot override statutory requirements when the wrong legal framework applies to a case.
The decision represents a significant victory for immigrant rights advocates challenging what they argue are systematic violations of due process in immigration enforcement. For immigration practitioners, the ruling reinforces the importance of ensuring proper sequencing of immigration charges and warrants, and demonstrates courts' willingness to grant immediate relief when statutory requirements are not followed.