Chavez-Raya v. Immigration and Naturalization Service, CHAVEZ-RAYA and G

CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (7th Circuit)
Writing for the CourtBefore CLARK; PELL
Citation519 F.2d 397
Docket NumberCHAVEZ-RAYA and G,No. 74-1482
Decision Date16 July 1975
PartiesAmparaloria Quintanar de Chavez, Petitioners, v. IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE, Respondent.

Page 397

519 F.2d 397
Ampara CHAVEZ-RAYA and Gloria Quintanar de Chavez, Petitioners,
v.
IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE, Respondent.
No. 74-1482.
United States Court of Appeals,
Seventh Circuit.
Argued Jan. 14, 1975.
Decided July 16, 1975.

Page 399

Michael B. Cohen, Chicago, Ill., for petitioners.

John L. Murphy, Chief, Mary Jo Grotenrath, Atty., Govt. Regulations Section, Crim. Div., U. S. Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., James R. Thompson, U. S. Atty., Gary L. Starkman, Asst. U. S. Atty., Chicago, Ill., for respondent.

Before CLARK, Associate Justice, * SWYGERT and PELL, Circuit Judges.

PELL, Circuit Judge.

The issue presented by this case is whether the failure to give Miranda 1 warnings to an alien renders his statements inadmissible in deportation proceedings.

The petitioners, Ampara Chavez-Raya and Gloria Quintanar de Chavez, are husband and wife and are natives and citizens of Mexico. According to the petitioners' offer of proof, which was presented at the deportation hearing, the facts surrounding their interrogations are as follows: 2

On April 25, 1973, investigators from the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) came to the hotel where Mr. Chavez was working and had the manager point out Chavez to them. The agents then approached Chavez, identified themselves, and asked Chavez for some identification. When Chavez tendered "a green card," presumably an alien registration card, the agents responded that the card was not Chavez's. They then informed Chavez that he was under arrest. The agents escorted Chavez to their car and Chavez subsequently, under further questioning, made certain admissions.

The agents then drove Chavez to his wife's place of employment where they asked Mrs. Chavez to produce her papers. When Mrs. Chavez indicated that her papers were at home, the agents drove her there and the documents were produced. Both petitioners were then driven to the INS office where they were given Miranda warnings and subsequently signed sworn statements.

An order to show cause was subsequently issued against both petitioners. At their joint deportation hearing, the petitioners, who were represented by counsel, refused to testify with respect to the charges of deportability, claiming privilege under the Fifth Amendment. Over petitioners' objections, the immigration judge admitted into evidence the petitioners' sworn signed statements. The Service also presented into evidence Mrs. Chavez's passport.

The immigration judge found that the petitioners were deportable as charged. 3 The Board of Immigration Appeals, upon finding that their deportability was established by clear, convincing and unequivocal evidence, dismissed the petitioners' appeal. The petitioners, pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1105a(a), seek review in this court of the final order of deportation. In this appeal the petitioners challenge only the admissibility of the statements and Mrs. Chavez's documents and concede that, if the statements and documents were admissible, the evidence was sufficient to establish deportability.

Mr. Chavez

Mr. Chavez contends that his written sworn statement should not have been admitted into evidence at the deportation hearing since he was not given Miranda warnings before being questioned at the agents' car.

In those situations in which Miranda warnings are required, the warnings must be given when the individual is subjected to a "custodial interrogation." Miranda, 384 U.S. at 444, 86 S.Ct. 1602. The Board of Immigration Appeals did not reach the broad question of whether

Page 400

the Miranda rule applies to deportation proceedings since it found that, in any event, Mr. Chavez was not in a "custodial setting" when he was questioned by the agents. We cannot agree with the Board's finding.

As this court recently noted, "the application of Miranda does not turn on such a simple axis as whether or not the suspect is in custody when he is being questioned." United States v. Oliver, 505 F.2d 301, 304 (7th Cir. 1974). Rather, the warnings are required if the individual is in custody "or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way." Miranda,384 U.S. at 444, 86 S.Ct. at 1612. A "custodial interrogation," moreover, may occur in places other than a police station. Orozco v. Texas, 394 U.S. 324, 89 S.Ct. 1095, 22 L.Ed.2d 311 (1969).

In the present case, the agents specifically asked at the hotel for Mr. Chavez. The agents allegedly told Chavez that the card which he had tendered to them was not his and that he was under arrest. Chavez was then escorted by the two agents to the agents' car and, at that point, under questioning by the agents, Chavez made the admissions. The agents did not give Chavez Miranda warnings prior to this questioning at the car. We conclude that, under these circumstances, Chavez's freedom of movement was significantly restrained during the interrogation at the car and that the petitioner was, therefore, subjected to a "custodial interrogation" without the benefit of Miranda warnings.

Moreover, the fact that Chavez was given Miranda warnings before he signed the sworn statement is immaterial. The written statement was executed shortly after Chavez had made oral admissions to the same agents without being given the warnings. As the Court noted in Miranda, such belated warnings, from the suspect's point of view, "came at the end of the interrogation process." In this situation, the Court concluded, "an intelligent waiver of constitutional rights cannot be assumed." 384 U.S. at 496, 86 S.Ct. at 1637. See also Darwin v. Connecticut, 391 U.S. 346, 88 S.Ct. 1488, 20 L.Ed.2d 630 (1968); United States ex rel. Williams v. Twomey, 467 F.2d 1248, 1252 (7th Cir. 1972); Sullins v. United States, 389 F.2d 985, 988 (10th Cir. 1968). 4

We are, thus, squarely faced with the question of whether the failure to give Miranda warnings renders an alien's statement inadmissible in a deportation proceeding. It is important to note, however, two matters which are not before us in this appeal. First, we are not here faced with the admissibility in a deportation hearing of a confession which was "coerced" in the sense that it resulted from physical or psychological threats or pressure. See Bong Youn Choy v. Barber, 279 F.2d 642 (9th Cir. 1960). Rather Chavez's admissions were "involuntary" only in the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
40 practice notes
  • Aguilar v. U.S. Immigration & Customs Enforcement Chi. Field Office, Case No. 17-cv-2296
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 7th Circuit. United States District Court (Northern District of Illinois)
    • 28 Septiembre 2018
    ...apply in the context of a criminal trial do not apply in a deportation hearing."); Chavez-Raya v. Immigration & Naturalization Serv. , 519 F.2d 397, 401 (7th Cir. 1975) (" ‘And while an alien is entitled to due process in the deportation proceedings * * * such proceedings ‘are not subject t......
  • Matter of Sandoval, Interim Decision Number 2725
    • United States
    • U.S. DOJ Board of Immigration Appeals
    • 20 Agosto 1979
    ...Trias-Hernandez v. INS, 528 F.2d 366, 368 (9 Cir.1975); Anila-Gallegos v. INS, 525 F.2d 666, 667 (2 Cir.1975); Chavez-Raya v. INS, 519 F.2d 397, 399-401 (7 Cir.1975). Accordingly, we find no clear mandate to extend the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule to apply in deportation proceedings w......
  • Lopez-Mendoza v. INS, No. 79-7673
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)
    • 25 Abril 1983
    ...has been consistently upheld) (citing United 705 F.2d 1088 States v. Gasca-Kraft, 522 F.2d 149, 152 (9th Cir.1975) and Chavez-Raya v. INS, 519 F.2d 397, 400-01 (7th Cir.1975)); Lavoie v. INS, 418 F.2d 732, 734 (9th Cir.1969) (the presence of counsel during interrogation and other sixth amen......
  • U.S. v. Henry, No. 78-5371
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit)
    • 16 Octubre 1979
    ...& Naturalization Service, 385 U.S. 276, 87 S.Ct. 483, 17 L.Ed.2d 362 (1966); Chavez-Raya v. Immigration & Naturalization Service, 519 F.2d 397 (7 Cir. 5 The alien was convicted for a violation of § 4 of the Act of May 5, 1892, which stated: "That any such Chinese person or person of Chinese......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
40 cases
  • Aguilar v. U.S. Immigration & Customs Enforcement Chi. Field Office, Case No. 17-cv-2296
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 7th Circuit. United States District Court (Northern District of Illinois)
    • 28 Septiembre 2018
    ...apply in the context of a criminal trial do not apply in a deportation hearing."); Chavez-Raya v. Immigration & Naturalization Serv. , 519 F.2d 397, 401 (7th Cir. 1975) (" ‘And while an alien is entitled to due process in the deportation proceedings * * * such proceedings ‘are not subject t......
  • Matter of Sandoval, Interim Decision Number 2725
    • United States
    • U.S. DOJ Board of Immigration Appeals
    • 20 Agosto 1979
    ...Trias-Hernandez v. INS, 528 F.2d 366, 368 (9 Cir.1975); Anila-Gallegos v. INS, 525 F.2d 666, 667 (2 Cir.1975); Chavez-Raya v. INS, 519 F.2d 397, 399-401 (7 Cir.1975). Accordingly, we find no clear mandate to extend the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule to apply in deportation proceedings w......
  • Lopez-Mendoza v. INS, No. 79-7673
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)
    • 25 Abril 1983
    ...has been consistently upheld) (citing United 705 F.2d 1088 States v. Gasca-Kraft, 522 F.2d 149, 152 (9th Cir.1975) and Chavez-Raya v. INS, 519 F.2d 397, 400-01 (7th Cir.1975)); Lavoie v. INS, 418 F.2d 732, 734 (9th Cir.1969) (the presence of counsel during interrogation and other sixth amen......
  • U.S. v. Henry, No. 78-5371
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit)
    • 16 Octubre 1979
    ...& Naturalization Service, 385 U.S. 276, 87 S.Ct. 483, 17 L.Ed.2d 362 (1966); Chavez-Raya v. Immigration & Naturalization Service, 519 F.2d 397 (7 Cir. 5 The alien was convicted for a violation of § 4 of the Act of May 5, 1892, which stated: "That any such Chinese person or person of Chinese......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT