U.S. v. Valdovinos-Valdovinos, VALDOVINOS-VALDOVINO
| Decision Date | 07 January 1985 |
| Docket Number | D,VALDOVINOS-VALDOVINO,No. 84-1055,84-1055 |
| Citation | 743 F.2d 1436 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Clementeefendant-Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Larry J. Gallagher, Asst. U.S. Atty., San Francisco, Cal., for plaintiff-appellant.
Carlo Andereani, San Francisco, Cal., for defendant-appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California.
Before TANG, POOLE and CANBY, Circuit Judges.
The United States appeals from the dismissal of an indictment against Clemente Valdovinos-Valdovinos ("Valdovinos"). The government argues that the district court's dismissal of the indictment because of outrageous government misconduct was improper. The government also contends that Valdovinos lacked standing to challenge the alleged outrageous practices of the immigration authorities. Because we agree with the government that Valdovinos lacked standing to challenge the conduct of the government, we reverse the order dismissing the indictment.
The challenged conduct raised by Valdovinos and the basis for dismissal by the district court centered around the operation of a government "cold line". The cold line is an undercover telephone operation set up and staffed by Immigration and Naturalization Service ("INS") officers. The undercover INS agents pose as American employers seeking to hire illegal aliens. The purpose of the cold line is to make contact with persons who may want to enter the United States illegally. After initial phone contact is made, the undercover INS agents offer to reimburse the smuggling expenses incurred by the aliens and to provide them with employment. Once the individuals enter the United States and rendezvous with the INS agents to claim their expenses and jobs, the agents arrest those in charge of transporting the aliens and the aliens themselves are deported.
The outrageous conduct defense originated from the Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Russell, 411 U.S. 423, 93 S.Ct. 1637, 36 L.Ed.2d 366 (1973). In Russell, the Court observed that certain police activities might be so egregious as to violate the due process clause of the Constitution:
[W]e may some day be presented with a situation in which the conduct of law enforcement agents is so outrageous that due process principles would absolutely bar the government from invoking judicial processes to obtain a conviction...."
Id. at 431-32, 93 S.Ct. at 1642-43 (citations omitted).
However, subsequent to Russell, the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Johnson
...on government conduct. E.g., United States v. Valdovinos-Valdovinos, 588 F.Supp. 551, 554-55 (N.D.Cal.), rev'd on other grounds, 743 F.2d 1436 (9th Cir.1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1114, 105 S.Ct. 799, 83 L.Ed.2d 791 (1985). Due process entrapment, however, is an "involvement-based" doctri......
-
US v. Finley
...McClain relies on such cases as United States v. Valdovinois-Valdovinois, 588 F.Supp. 551 (N.D.Cal.1984), rev'd on other grounds, 743 F.2d 1436 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1114, 105 S.Ct. 799, 83 L.Ed.2d 791 (1985), and United States v. Ramirez, 710 F.2d 535 (9th Cir.1983). These cas......
-
United States v. Richter, 84 CR 235.
...See, e.g., United States v. Valdovinos-Valdovinos, 588 F.Supp. 551, 554-55 and n. 6 (N.D.Cal.1984), rev'd on other grounds, 743 F.2d 1436 (9th Cir.1984), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 105 S.Ct. 799, 83 L.Ed.2d 791 (1985), and cases cited Even though this is a question of law, the Court is pre......
-
U.S. v. Santana
...on the basis that governmental misconduct caused conscience-shocking harm to non-defendants. See United States v. Valdovinos-Valdovinos, 743 F.2d 1436, 1437-38 (9th Cir.1984) (per curiam) (rejecting an outrageous misconduct defense on the strength of footnote 9 in a case in which government......