Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Somsak Hoonsilapa v. Immigration & Naturalization Service

586 F.2d 755

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1978-11-20
Topic
general

How later courts describe this case

  • “It is well settled in this circuit that the mere fact that ■ Fourth Amendment illegality directs attention to a particular suspect does not require exclusion of evidence subsequently unearthed from independent sources.”

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Somsak Hoonsilapa v. Immigration & Naturalization Service. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
28 opinions
HOONSILAPA, v. IMMIGRATION NATURALIZATION,586 F.2d 755(9th Cir. 1978)
SOMSAK HOONSILAPA, PETITIONER, v. IMMIGRATION NATURALIZATION SERVICE,
RESPONDENT.
No. 77-1376.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
November 20, 1978.
Michael F. Eng (argued), Los Angeles, Cal., for petitioner.

Donna Fields Goldstein, Asst. U.S. Atty. (argued), Los Angeles, Cal., for respondent.
Before CHAMBERS and HUFSTEDLER, Circuit Judges, and KING,fn*District Judge.
[1] The Opinion [575 F.2d 735] is modified by adding footnote 1a to the Opinion at Slip Opinion page 1640 [575 F.2d at page 738] line 3 of part III, following the words, "home in December, 1974, were illegal," as follows:
"[1a] We thus do not decide whether the exclusionary rule is applicable to proceedings before the Immigration Naturalization Service."
Page 1300
  1. Honorable Samuel P. King, Chief Judge, United States District Court, District of Hawaii, sitting by designation. ↩