Susnjar v. United States
| Decision Date | 06 July 1928 |
| Docket Number | No. 5138.,5138. |
| Citation | 27 F.2d 223 |
| Parties | SUSNJAR et al. v. UNITED STATES. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit |
O. Guy Frick, of Detroit, Mich., for plaintiffs in error.
Miss Irene Nungesser, Asst. U. S. Atty., of Cleveland, Ohio (A. E. Bernsteen, U. S. Atty., of Cleveland, Ohio, on the brief), for the United States.
Before DENISON, DONAHUE, and HICKS, Circuit Judges.
Kot, Smarlicki, Noconj, Ulomek, Borosh and Chicowski were aliens, not entitled to enter or reside within the United States. Plaintiffs in error were jointly indicted for a violation of section 37, Cr. Code (18 USCA § 88) in that they conspired to violate section 8 of the Immigration Act of February 5, 1917 (section 144, tit. 8, U. S. C. 8 USCA § 144), by concealing and harboring and attempting to conceal and harbor, said aliens; the alleged plan or scheme being that they would transport said alien persons in an automobile from Detroit to Cleveland, Ohio, and place them in homes in and around Cleveland. The overt acts alleged were that they concealed and harbored (1) all of said aliens at Susnjar's home at Detroit; (2) some of them at 986 Seventy-Sixth street; and (3) some of them at 3584 East 144th street in Cleveland, Ohio.
The first seven and the tenth assignments of error, though couched in differing phraseology, are all leveled at the denial of a directed verdict. A proper determination of the matter involves an interpretation of the following language in section 8 of the act in question, to wit: "Or shall conceal or harbor or attempt to conceal or harbor, or assist or abet another to conceal or harbor * * * any alien," etc. One of the principal objects of the immigration statutes is to exclude from the country all aliens who have unlawfully succeeded in effecting an entry. Haw Moy v. North (C. C. A. 9) 183 F. 89, 91, certiorari denied 223 U. S. 717, 32 S. Ct. 522, 56 L. Ed. 628.
When taken in connection with the purposes of the act, we conceive the natural meaning of the word "harbor" to be to clandestinely shelter, succor, and protect improperly admitted aliens, and that the word "conceal" should be taken in the simple sense of shielding from observation and preventing discovery of such alien persons. There seems to be nothing unnatural or strained in this interpretation of the meaning of these words, when thought of in connection with the object and purposes of the act. Considering the case from this viewpoint, both as to the alleged unlawful agreement and the overt acts in furtherance...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Trollinger v. Tyson Foods, Inc.
...as "conduct tending substantially to facilitate an alien's remaining in the United States illegally." See Susnjar v. United States, 27 F.2d 223, 224 (6th Cir.1928); States v. Varkonyi, 645 F.2d 453, 459 (5th Cir.1981); United States v. Lopez, 521 F.2d 437, 441 (2d Cir.1975); United States v......
-
United States v. Tobin
...208-209, 78 S.Ct. 1087, 2 L.Ed.2d 1255 (dictum). 124 ALI, Model Penal Code (Tentative Draft No. 10) § 2.09, p. 7; Susnjar v. United States, 6 Cir., 1928, 27 F.2d 223, 224; State v. Western Union Telephone Co., 1953, 12 N.J. 468, 97 A.2d 480, 493, appeal dismissed 346 U.S. 869, 74 S.Ct. 124,......
-
U.S. v. Gold
...States v. Boyle, 482 F.2d 755, 764 (D.C.Cir.), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 1076, 94 S.Ct. 593, 38 L.Ed.2d 483 (1973); Susnjar v. United States, 27 F.2d 223, 224 (6th Cir.1928). If, on the other hand, Highsmith was genuinely ignorant of the criminal nature of his actions, then he was not guilty b......
-
United States v. Costello
...should be taken in the simple sense of shielding from observation and preventing discovery of such alien persons.” Susnjar v. United States, 27 F.2d 223, 224 (6th Cir.1928). So concealment (“ clandestinely shelter”) is an element of harboring. In like vein United States v. Mack, 112 F.2d 29......
-
Immigration v. Religious Freedom in Trump’s America: Offering Legal Sanctuary in Places of Worship
...733 F.3d 366, 381–82 (2d Cir. 2013); United States v. Costello, 666 F.3d 1040, 1050 (7th Cir. 2012); Susnjar v. United States 27 F.2d 223, 224 (6th Cir. 1928); United States v. Blevin-Ramales, 458 F. Supp. 2d 409, 411 (E.D. Ky. 2006). 129. Costello, 666 F.3d at 1050 (emphasis added). 130. I......
-
Worksite enforcement issues for employers.
...18 U.S.C. [section] 1028(a)(7). (68) 42 U.S.C. [section] 408(a)(6). (69) INA [section] 274(a)(1)(A)(5). (70) Susnjar v. United States, 27 F.2d 223 (6th Cir. 1928); United States v. Belevin-Ramales, 458 F. Supp.2d 409 (E.D. Ky. 2006); Hager v. ABX Air, Inc., No. 2:07-cv-317, 2008 U.S. Dist. ......