WONG SHONG BEEN

v.

PROCTOR, COMMISSIONER OF IMMIGRATION

Citator

Cited By (15 total)

• Downing v. United States, 348 F.2d 594 (5th Cir. 1965)
  …where Downing’s confederates stayed. Of course, the jury was present when the exhibits were identified and introduced into evidence. The jury got what they had already been given. See Outlaw v. United States (5 Cir. 1936) 81 F. 2d 805, cert. denied 298 U.S. 665, 56 S.Ct. 747, 80 L.Ed. 1389. Even if the jury inadvertently received the one document which was not admitted into evidence, that fact seems inconsequential. United States v. Compagna (2 Cir. 1944) 146 F. 2d 524, cert. denied 324 U.S. 867, 65 S.Ct.…
• Murgia v. United States, 285 F.2d 14 (9th Cir. 1960)
  …e Ngee How, D.C.N.D.Cal. 1952, 105 F.Supp. 517. Appellants seek relief from the broad effect of the border search rule by certain language in Landau v. United States Attorney for Southern District, 2 Cir., 1936, 82 F. 2d 285, 286, certiorari denied 298 U.S. 665, 56 S.Ct. 747, 80 L.Ed. 1389; and United States v. Yee Ngee How, supra. In both these cases, the right of a border search was upheld. In Landau, the court said: [82 F. 2d 286] “The search which customs agents are authorized to conduct upon entry is…
• United States v. Asbury, 586 F.2d 973 (2d Cir. 1978)
  …al boundaries. United States v. Glaziou, 402 F. 2d 8, 12 (2d Cir. 1968), cert, denied, 393 U.S. 1121, 89 S.Ct. 999, 22 L.Ed.2d 126 (1969); Landau v. United States Attorney for Southern District of New York, 82 F. 2d 285, 286 (2d Cir.), cert, denied, 298 U.S. 665, 56 S.Ct. 747, 80 L.Ed. 1389 (1936). Moreover, the Supreme Court has established, in an unbroken line of cases, that routine border inspections to effectuate this control do not violate the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition against unreasonable search…