(4) That the plaintiff had been subjected to illegal search and seizure in violation of the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States;
(5) That Section 287(a)(1) and (2) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C.A. § 1357(a)(1) and (a)(2) are unconstitutional.
The objections raised to the action of the administrative agency are entirely without merit. The question as to whether a Special Inquiry Officer may conduct an administrative hearing under the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 has been settled by the decision of the United States Supreme Court on May 31, 1955 in Marcello v. Bonds, 1954, 349 U.S. 302, 75 S. Ct. 757.
As to the contention that plaintiff was deprived of due process of law under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, Section 287(a)(1) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, 8 U.S.C.A. § 1357(a)(1), provides statutory authority for an officer of the Immigration and Naturalization Service to interrogate any alien or person believed to be an alien as to his right to be or remain in the United States without a warrant. The objection that he was compelled to testify against himself is entirely groundless.
With respect to the contention that plaintiff was illegally arrested without a warrant, Section 287(a)(2) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, 8 U.S.C.A. § 1357(a)(2) likewise provides statutory authority for an officer of the Immigration and Naturalization Service to arrest without a warrant any alien who the official of the agency believes is in the United States in violation of any such law or regulation and is likely to escape before a warrant can be obtained for his arrest. Under the circumstances, the action of the patrol inspectors, knowing that the alien was in the United States without a valid immigration visa and had been reported one year before as a deserting seaman, was entirely justified. The arrest without a warrant was strictly in accordance with the law and violated no constitutional privileges of plaintiff.
Answering the contention of illegal search and seizure in violation of the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, the plaintiff freely testified at the hearing in this Court that any documents he gave to the inspectors were given willingly and voluntarily.
The final contention is that Section 287(a)(1) and (2) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C.A. § 1357(a)(1) and (2) are unconstitutional. I find, however, that the constitutionality of these sections was expressly raised by plaintiff's own counsel in the case of United States v. Correia, 1953, 3 Cir., 207 F.2d 595 where, in a per curiam opinion, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit upheld the constitutionality of these sections.
The only remaining question is as to the time when the plaintiff decided to remain in the United States and actually became a deserting seaman. His testimony was that after leaving the ship and seeing what the United States was, he decided to remain. This statement, of course, as stated before, contradicts his admissions to the inspectors at the scene of his arrest and his sworn statement given on the same day at the office of the District Director of the Immigration and Naturalization Service. The argument might have some merit, had this been the first trip of the plaintiff to the United States. But he had been in this country many times before. The conclusion of the Special Inquiry Officer that he had formed the intention to desert at the time he left the ship is amply supported by the evidence.
I have carefully examined the record made in this case and I can find no irregularities either in the manner in which the plaintiff was taken into custody or any evidence of an illegal search and seizure of the plaintiff. The inspectors were fully justified in making a casual search for weapons. The testimony is crystal clear that no illegal search and seizure of his person was made. Any personal property which the plaintiff turned over to the inspectors was freely and voluntarily delivered to them by the plaintiff. I can only conclude that the proceedings as conducted by the Immigration and Naturalization Service were entirely fair and in accordance with established procedures.
There being no dispute as to any material fact and the charge of deportability, to wit: violation of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (no immigration visa as required by Act of 1924) having been established by substantial, competent and probative evidence, it follows that the motion for summary judgment must be granted. This is particularly true in an action of this nature where the scope of review by this Court is limited by Section 10 of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C.A. 1009; I find that the proceedings as conducted by the administrative agency in this instance have met all the requirements of that section.
An appropriate order will be entered.