United States ex rel. Cecilia v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, IMMIGRATION & NATURALIZATION SERVICE

• Decision Date: 31 January 1952
• Citation: 102 F. Supp. 204
• Parties: UNITED STATES ex rel. CECILIA v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, IMMIGRATION & NATURALIZATION SERVICE et al.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York

102 F. Supp. 204

UNITED STATES ex rel. CECILIA v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, IMMIGRATION & NATURALIZATION SERVICE et al.

United States District Court S. D. New York.

January 31, 1952.

A. George Catalano, Brooklyn, N. Y., J. J. Kilimnik, Philadelphia, Pa., of counsel, for petitioner.

Myles J. Lane, U. S. Atty., New York City, William J. Sexton and Joseph N. Friedman, New York City, of counsel, for respondents.

WEINFELD, District Judge.

The Court has read the testimony given upon the deportation hearing of the relator and also that taken upon the deportation hearing of Eduardo Volchart Lopes Da Silva Cordeiro, who was arrested at the same time and place as relator, the parties having stipulated that these minutes set forth all relevant facts and circumstances of his arrest and there was no need for additional testimony on this application.

After a careful and close reading of the record, the Court finds that the facts do not sustain the charge of unlawful arrest and illegal search and seizure.

The immigration inspector who was conducting an investigation pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 150 was admitted by Cordeiro to the apartment in a hotel which he shared with relator and one other. The evidence satisfies that the inspector identified himself to those present as required by 8 C. F.R. § 150.1(c). He was shortly joined by two other immigration inspectors who were summoned by the first. Cordeiro and the relator were each separately questioned to determine alienage and status in the United States.¹ The evidence leaves little room to question that the statements made by relator and his roommate were freely and voluntarily made in the course of the investigation. Upon completion of the interrogatories relator refused to sign the statement containing his answers, although Cordeiro did, and at his hearing acknowledged that he had freely and voluntarily done so.

Within a half hour one of the three inspectors, upon the basis of the statements made, applied by telephone to the District Director for a telegraphic warrant of arrest, which was granted.² Not until the telegraphic warrant had been issued was the relator arrested, at which time he was advised of its issuance. Promptly, he was taken to a station house and within a half hour the telegraphic warrant was decoded and a copy there served upon the relator. Attached to the application for the warrant, as required by 8 C.F.R. § 150.2, is the form of statement containing relator's answers as recorded by the questioning immigration inspector and these are in accord with his subsequent testimony at his deportation hearing, where he testified through an interpreter. (The reason assigned for his refusal to sign the answers when first taken was that he did not understand English.) The morning following relator's arrest he was given a hearing before an immigration examiner.

The evidence also...