Skip to main content
Translate
Default
English
Español
Français

Sign Up for Our E-News!

Join over 18,000 other roofers who get the Week in Roofing for a recap of this week's best industry posts!

Sign Up
Home Service Freedom -  - Register for Event 2026
ABC Supply -  Ad - Construyendo Una Industria Más Inclusiva (Lunch & Learn)
Equipter - 4000 -
All Weather Insulated Panels -  Ad - GlimpseXR
SRS -  Ad (En Espanol Page) - Credit Application
Westlake -  Ad - The Evolution of Metal Roofing
Translate
Default
English
Español
Français

Why jobsite access control matters more than ever

Why jobsite access control matters more than ever
October 28, 2026 at 5:00 a.m.

By The Coffee Shops®. 

Takeaways from the Alabama immigration case Venegas v. Homan that contractors should pay attention to. 

Last month, an Alabama federal court made a ruling in the case of Venegas v. Homan. This case arose from two encounters involving Leonardo Garcia Venegas, a U.S. citizen who builds homes in Baldwin County, Alabama. During the first encounter, armed officers entered a posted jobsite, detained Leonardo and questioned the validity of his Alabama STAR ID before confirming his citizenship. Less than a month later, an officer entered a nearly completed home where Leanardo was working and again detained him. 

The ruling that the court made, led by Chief U.S. District Judge Jeffrey Beaverstock, rejected the government’s argument that construction sites should be treated as open fields that officers may enter without warrants and reinforced jobsite protections. This ruling specifically temporarily stayed three Department of Homeland Security enforcement policies (found in Section 705 of the Administrative Procedure Act):  

  1. Entering private construction sites without consent or a warrant 
  2. Detaining workers without individualized suspicion that they are unlawfully present 
  3. Continuing to detain workers after they provide evidence of citizenship or lawful status 

Overall, the court distinguished active, private workplaces marked by fencing and “No Trespassing” signs from abandoned or undeveloped property. It also recognized that employees may have a reasonable expectation of privacy in nonpublic work areas. They further found that officers must have reasonable suspicion based on specific facts before detaining someone to investigate immigration status.  

What does this mean for contractors? Law firm Adams & Reese’s Mary Kate Fernandez and Trent Cotney wrote an article breaking down the key takeaways from this case for construction contractors. This includes that “job sites are not ‘open fields,’ workers have Fourth Amendment rights on the job, REAL ID-compliant identification carries weight and site access controls matter.”  

Learn more about this case and what it means for you and your crew.

Learn more about Adams & Reese LLP in their Coffee Shop Directory or visit www.adamsandreese.com.

The information contained in this article is for general educational information only. This information does not constitute legal advice, is not intended to constitute legal advice, nor should it be relied upon as legal advice for your specific factual pattern or situation.



Recommended For You


Comments

There are currently no comments here.

Leave a Reply

Commenting is only accessible to RCS users.

Have an account? Login to leave a comment!


Sign In
Coffee Conversations - Banner Ad - The Post-Election Roofing Outlook (sponsored by Elevate)
Translate
Default
English
Español
Français

Sign Up for Our E-News!

Join over 18,000 other roofers who get the Week in Roofing for a recap of this week's best industry posts!

Sign Up
Adtaxi -  - Webinar
SoyLei -  Ad - APEX 1132 Rejuvenate
RPH -  Ad - Penetration Solutions
Home Service Freedom -  - Register for Event 2026
SRS -  Ad - Bucket Awareness 2026
RCS En Espanol -  Ad - LVR