While walking to a restaurant in Pasadena, California, at 6:30 a.m., Medina-Sandoval was stopped by immigration officers and asked whether he had his "green card."
The Board of Immigration Appeals dismissed the appeal, holding that the illegality of an arrest does not destroy a later, valid proceeding. Since no evidence obtained through the stop and arrest was used to establish deportability, the Board found that even if the arrest were unlawful, the deportation proceeding was valid.
In this petition for review Medina-Sandoval renews his claim that he was stopped illegally and contends that the illegal stop renders the entire proceeding invalid. Assuming that the stop was unlawful, we affirm the Service's decision.
The Immigration Service did not rely on any statements made by Medina-Sandoval during the interrogation at the Immigration Office. He was found deportable because of his admissions at the hearing, given voluntarily and with the advice of counsel. Thus, there was no unlawfully acquired evidence to be suppressed, and the exclusionary rule is not applicable.
Were this a criminal proceeding, the illegality of the arrest would not invalidate a subsequent prosecution and conviction. (United States v. Sanchez-Rodriguez (9th Cir. 1973) 475 F.2d 61; Green v. United States (5th Cir. 1972) 460 F.2d 317; United States v. Villella (9th Cir. 1972) 459 F.2d 1028. See Frisbie v. Collins (1952) 342 U.S. 519, 72 S.Ct. 509, 96 L.Ed. 541; Ker v. Illinois (1886) 119 U.S. 436, 7 S.Ct. 225, 30 L.Ed. 421.) A fortiori, an unlawful stop does not bar commencement of a civil deportation proceeding. (Cf. Lavoie v. I&NS (9th Cir. 1969) 418 F.2d 732 (Sixth Amendment safeguards not fully applicable to deportation proceedings).) In United States ex rel. Bilokumsky v. Tod (1923) 263 U.S. 149, 158, 44 S.Ct. 54, 68 L.Ed. 221, the Supreme Court noted that "[i]rregularities on the part of the government official prior to, or in connection with, the arrest would not necessarily invalidate later proceedings in all respects conformable to law." At least three Circuit Courts of Appeals have followed Bilokumsky in circumstances similar to those in this case. (Guzman-Flores v. I&NS (7th Cir. 1974) 496 F.2d 1245; La Franca v. I&NS (2d Cir. 1969) 413 F.2d 686; Klissas v. I&NS (1966), 124 U.S.App.D.C. 75, 361 F.2d 529.) We see no reason to disagree with those cases in the circumstances presented here.
The order of voluntary departure is affirmed.