United States v. Wong Quong Wong
| Citation | 94 F. 832 |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Vermont |
| Decision Date | 01 June 1899 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES v. WONG QUONG WONG. SAME v. WONG CHIN SHUEN. |
Fuller C. Smith, for appellants.
James L. Martin, U.S. Atty.
The appellants are brothers, of the Chinese race. Their appeals from orders of deportation stand upon the same evidence, and have been heard together, by consent. The testimony of the elder and that of their father shows, with somewhat convincing detail, that they were born in San Francisco. It is attacked by showing discrepancies of statements at different hearings, which would be formidable if the language in which they were made could be always clearly understood but the obvious difficulties in that respect require large allowances for many natural, and with the best of faith, unavoidable, misunderstandings. In view of these circumstances, the discrepancies do not appear to justly overcome the direct and apparently well-understood assertion of the fact of birth in this country.
But the government produces letters, written in Chinese, said to have been handed by the appellants to an employe of the government, who passed them to customs officials, who opened kept, and have offered them in evidence, and which, being interpreted, are said to show bad faith in the claim made by the appellants, and to go far towards overthrowing it. They are objected to as having been procured by unreasonable seizure, if the mode of acquiring them as attempted to be shown is true, and as not being shown to have come from the appellants if it is not true. The fourth amendment to the constitution of the United States declares that 'the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated'; and the fifth, among other things, that no person 'shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself.'
In Boyd v. U.S., 116 U.S. 616, 6 Sup.Ct. 524, goods had been forfeited under the revenue laws on evidence furnished by papers required to be produced on order of court. The question of the admissibility of such evidence, so procured, was much discussed in an elaborate opinion by Mr. Justice Bradley, in the course of which he quoted largely and approvingly from the judgment of Lord Camden in Entick v. Carrington, 19 Howell, St. Tr. 1029, and added, among other things:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Immigration & Naturalization Serv. v. Lopez-Mendoza
...is as one that includes both a motion to suppress and a motion to dismiss." 705 F.2d 1059, 1060, n. 1 (1983). 2. In United States v. Wong Quong Wong, 94 F. 832 (Vt.1899), a District Judge excluded letters seized from the appellant in a civil deportation proceeding. In Ex parte Jackson, 263 ......
-
Lopez-Mendoza v. INS
...obtained by federal agents is inadmissible in subsequent deportation proceedings. The first case to so hold was United States v. Wong Quong Wong, 94 F. 832 (D.Vt.1899). Relying on Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616, 6 S.Ct. 524, 29 L.Ed. 746 (1886) (evidence obtained in violation of the Fo......
-
Matter of Sandoval
...Ex parte Jackson, 263 F. 110 (D.Mont.1920), appeal dismissed, sub nom. Andrews v. Jackson, 267 F. 1022 (9 Cir.1920); United States v. Wong Quong Wong, 94 F. 832 (D.Vt.1899). 5. Gordon and Rosenfield, Immigration Law and Procedure (Revised Edition 1977), at 5-31. No case cited in support of ......
-
State v. Gutierrez
...In this regard the Fourth and Fifth Amendments run almost into each other. Boyd, 116 U.S. at 630, 6 S.Ct. at 532. In United States v. Wong Quong Wong, 94 F. 832 (D.Vt.1899), the government instituted deportation proceedings against two Asian men. At the hearing, the government produced lett......