South Texas Lawyer-Rancher Duels With Government Over Surveillance Camera on His Property
Ricardo Palacios, who has been a member of the Texas bar for nearly five decades and worked with clients in the gas and oil business, said he was driving around his 1,000-acre ranch in November when he noticed a camera strapped to a mesquite tree.
February 28, 2018 at 05:13 PM
4 minute read
A South Texas cattle rancher and semi-retired lawyer is taking on federal and state immigration law enforcement officials, claiming they illegally trespassed onto his property and secretly installed a surveillance camera as part of their efforts to snag illegal border-crossers.
Ricardo Palacios, who has been a member of the Texas bar for nearly five decades and worked with clients in the gas and oil business, now devotes his efforts to running his ranch in Encinal, in La Salle County.
Palacios said he was driving around his 1,000-acre ranch in November when he noticed a camera strapped to a mesquite tree.
“I said what the hell, what's that doing there,” Palacios said. “I took out a machete and took it down.”
It turned out that the camera was placed there by the Texas Rangers, an arm of the Texas Department of Public Safety, and the U.S. Customs and Boarder Protection as part of “Operation Drawbridge,” which monitors the border between Texas and Mexico.
Palacios, who said he's had had past run-ins with law enforcement entering his property without his permission, said he never authorized border patrol officials to install any surveillance cameras. So, after taking it down, he kept it.
Palacios, a 1970 graduate of St. Mary's School of Law in San Antonio, said he then began getting calls from the Rangers and CBP—presumably because the camera stopped broadcasting—demanding the return of the camera, an off-the-shelf item that retails for about $300.
“I said, 'No. I'm not going to give it to you,'” he said
On its website, the state DPS says it uses the cameras to monitor the border with CBP because there are not enough funds to pay for sufficient personnel to personally watch the 1,200-mile border.
Despite facing possible charges of theft of government property, Palacios refused to return the camera, saying he was going to keep it since he was filing a lawsuit demanding that law enforcement obtain his authority before entering his property. Despite threats of arrest, he has refused to return the camera, he said.
Under federal law, border patrol agents have the right to enter onto private property without permission within 25 miles of any border, excluding private residences. However, Palacios' cattle ranch is 35 miles north of the border.
“They need to get my permission before they go on my property,” said Palacios, who inherited the ranch in 1995.
He then filed his federal lawsuit against the border patrol and the Rangers. He said the camera, now in the possession of his attorneys, should not be returned until he is paid $500,000 in compensatory damages and is given a promise that border patrol officials will not encroach on his property without first seeking his permission.
Palacios is represented by Laredo solos David Almaraz and Raul Casso. The matter currently is before U.S. Magistrate Judge Guillermo Garcia of the Southern District of Texas, sitting in Laredo. No hearings have been scheduled.
“Defendants installed the camera on plaintiff's property under no circumstances, exigent or otherwise, that would allow defendants to intrude on plaintiff's property,” Amaraz and Casso wrote in a court filing.
They are asking Garcia to keep the surveillance camera in his possession pending the outcome of Palacios' lawsuit.
“He's not going to give the camera back at this point,” Casso said. “If the ranch was within 25 miles of the border, we wouldn't have a case. But the ranch is at the 35-mile marker on Interstate 35.”
“We have yet to hear from the government,” Almaraz added.
A spokesman for CBP said the agency would not comment on pending litigation. Officials from the Texas Department of Public Safety also declined to comment.
Palacios said he has not discovered any other cameras on his property.
“There may be other cameras or sensors there. I don't know,” he said.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All5th Circuit Rules Open-Source Code Is Not Property in Tornado Cash Appeal
5 minute readAkin, Baker Botts, Vinson & Elkins Are First Texas Big Law Firms to Match Milbank Bonuses
4 minute readTrending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250