United States v. Karnuth

• Decision Date: 07 May 1930
• Citation: 47 F.2d 944
• Parties: UNITED STATES ex rel. LA BUDA v. KARNUTH et al., Immigration Inspectors.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Western District of New York

47 F.2d 944 (1930)

UNITED STATES ex rel. LA BUDA v. KARNUTH et al., Immigration Inspectors.

District Court, W. D. New York.

May 7, 1930.

Jay T. Barnsdall, Jr., of Buffalo, N. Y., for petitioner.

Richard H. Templeton, U. S. Atty., of Buffalo, N. Y. (John K. Gerken, Asst. U. S. Atty., of Buffalo, N. Y., of counsel), for respondents.

HAZEL, District Judge.

The alien, Stanislaw La Buda, was born in Poland and is a subject of that country. On April 8, 1927, he landed at St. Johns, New Brunswick, and was thereafter employed as a laborer in various places in Canada until November 12, 1929, when he was unlawfully brought into the United States at Niagara Falls, N. Y. He was not provided with an unexpired immigration visa and did not submit himself for examination as provided by the immigration laws. He was taken into custody on January 9, 1930, on information that he had illegally entered the United States, and, upon being questioned, he voluntarily admitted that he had been smuggled into this country. Subsequently on January 16th, following the issuance of an order of arrest, he was accorded a hearing, the alien appearing by counsel; and at such hearing, under advice of counsel, he declined to answer any questions that were put to him. Thereupon his prior admissions, made in writing and signed by him in the presence of the inspector, were offered in evidence, and thereafter a warrant of deportation was issued deporting him to Poland under sections 19, 20 of the Immigration Act of February 5, 1917 (8 USCA §§ 155, 156).

I find that the hearings given the alien on January 9 and January 16, 1930, were fair and impartial. He claims that the admissions made by him were made under threat of imprisonment, but I deem such claim is not sufficiently substantiated, since the inspector denies having made any threats and asserts that the statement was voluntarily made prior to the arrest. He declined to avail himself of the opportunity, after being advised of the nature of the proceeding, to show the right to remain in the country. The cases of Ungar v. Seaman (C. C. A.) 4 F.(2d) 80, and Charley Hee v. U. S. (C. C. A.) 19 F. (2d) 335, cited by counsel for the relator, were on different facts and are inapplicable.

The statements voluntarily made by the relator prior to the issuance of the warrant were properly received in evidence. Lew Guy v. Tillinghast (D. C.) 24 F.(2d) 825; and see Ah Lin v. U. S. (C. C. A.) 20 F.(2d) 107. In the last-mentioned case the learned co...