*1 919 my In unlawfully view the Executive Branch acts when it privacy invades an individual’s or trickery through g., e. States, Lewis United See, v. fraud. 206, 385 U. S. (1966) 344-347 a v. United (Douglas, J., dissenting); Hoff States, 385 U. S. 293, (1966) (separate 347-348 of opinion Douglas, J.). The dangers posed by such invasions particularly become however, acute, they when through achieved or accompanied electronic monitor ing presented sort here.3 I would grant certiorari. Immigration

No. Dunn 73-1728. and Naturali- v. zation Service. C. 9th Cir. Certiorari A. denied. Doug-

Mr. Justice Stewart, with whom Justice Mr. las joins, dissenting.

Petitioner review of deport- seeks the Service’s order him ing Canada, nation of The Ninth citizenship. Circuit noted that Service’s “discretion . might have been greater exercised with .compassion,” but none- States, Osborn supra, v. United upheld the Court of a use recording prior face-to-face conversation where there had been judicial recording. authorization for the S.,U. at In 385 329-330. my Osborn elsewhere, dissent and my I have forth view that set prior judicial even approval cannot validate into intrusions constitu tionally protected privacy evidentiary zones for the seizure of mere material; protection particularly the need acute when the words, items to be seized are individual’s thoughts, papers own personal effects, if no Fifth problem squarely even Amendment Id., presented. J., dissenting); Warden v. at 349-354 (Douglas, Hayden, 294, (1967) 319-325 J., dissenting); U. (Douglas, States, Couch v. United 322, (1973) U. S. J., (Douglas, dissenting). light judi the absence of attempt to secure present case, cial in the press authorization I see no need that view further this time. at 3 See, g., e. Osborn v. supra, at 352-354 (Doug J., White, supra, United States v. dissenting); las, at 762-765 J., dissenting); Lopez States, supra, (Douglas, at 463- J., dissenting). (Brennan, theory scope upheld thel'ess the order on that “the *2 extremely in this area is narrow.” review peculiar; or, accurately, more Serv- facts the peculiar light ice’s action is in of the facts. to Moving (at country parents age peti- with his 1953 9), acquired permanent such, tioner resident alien As status. subject draft, he was to 62 605, the Stat. as 65 amended, 50 76, App. Stat. U. C. 454 and he (a), duly registered § S. on his 18th birthday. August he 1966, was ordered report to September for induction on 1966. 28, Possess- ing strong against views and conscription, petitioner war go Canada, decided to to rather than serve. At the border, he in his Alien Immigration turned Card but ex- pressly sign refused to a formal renunciation of per- his manent Very resident status. he quickly, thought better of his September decision leave. On to his induction 28, date, petitioner telephoned his draft board to announce he returning was to the United States to surrender to a Attorney accept States and to the legal penalty for refusing induction. On 3, petitioner October 1966, flew Chicago and turned himself in to the United States Attorney. The Government took no 21 action for months, which during petitioner time studied at an university. American

Finally, in July 1968, petitioner was indicted under 62 Stat. 50 622, U. App. § S. C. 462 (a), for “evad[ing] or refus[ing] . . . service the armed forces.” He pleaded guilty and was sentenced to six months’ imprison- ment and 18 months’ probation, the latter conditioned on his doing work civilian importance. national Peti- tioner served this sentence in full.

Two later, the Service deport moved to on him, grounds that he had fled country the to evade the draft, 66 8 184, (a) § Stat. S. 1182 U. C. (22), and abandoned his immigrant status 66 process, 183, Stat. as amended, (a)(20). S. was 918, Stat. U. C. This

surprise, thought the books return voluntary this matter had been balanced authorities, plea, surrender to guilty no and service of sentence. The found that Service ever promised petitioner Government official that such peti- would be case. reasonableness Still, impression tioner’s enough. Prevailing clear law from exemption afforded aliens an Service Selective liability they if were to forfeit willing resident status and chance at eventual Stat. citizenship, ed.). 50 U. C. 606, App. (a) (1964 Exercising §454 option meant an certain loss right almost alien’s *3 to remain in country. than op- Rather exercise this tion, petitioner accepted draft law liability, and the Gov- ernment solemnized his choice with convic- prosecution, tion, punishment and under the draft laws. Now the same Government, in the guise Immigration of the Serv- ice, to disregard wishes his earlier choice, and burdens imposed it, petitioner incident to and to deport ifas none happened. this had In my view, the legal grounds two asserted support deportation do not overcome the injustice obvious of the order.

First: petitioner The Service found deportable for hav- ing re-entered the country, flight after his to Canada, a possession

“not unexpired valid immigrant § visa.” 8 U. C. 1182 (a)(20). theory petitioner is that abandoned permanent resi-

dent status, visa, and thus his when he turned in his alien card at the border. Standing theory would alone, I not be unreasonable. But cannot square it with the prosecuted fact petitioner the Government for breaching premised induction order on his as status a permanent resident. time, At the nonresident aliens were also sub- ject to the draft, only but after “in remaining the United permanent of a in status other than that resident States a year.” App. 454§ for a one 50 U. S. C. period exceeding (a) (1964 ed.). If petitioner lost his resident border, his return would not have made status at him “liable for and service the Armed Forces” training (a) year certainly new later, under 454 until a and liability required would have a new induction order.

By promptly orderly his case and in fashion submitting petitioner rightfully the UnitéÜ States ex- Attorney, pected responsible examination by of his case the Gov- ernment. my judgment, to prosecute, the decision nearly two later, implied adherence Government by to the held petitioner then as view, now, per-, that his status, manent legal resident and thus the premise th,e order, induction had not been undermined his brief dé- marche Having in Canada. petitioner led through the rigors of indictment, punishment conviction, on this theory, the Government now precluded should be from changing Ohio, Raley its mind. Cf. 360 U. S. 423 (1959); Louisiana, Cox v. (1965). U. S. 559

Second: The Service also found deportable for having

“departed from or remained outside the United States to avoid or evade or training service *4 armed forces time of period war or a .. [of] national emergency.” 8 (a) (22). U. S. C. 1182 purpose obvious (a) (22) §1182 deny is to admis- sion to the United States to who aliens have used foreign asylum to escape their liabilities under the law. draft It would appear provision that the disjunc- reads the “departed from or . . . remained outside” —so as to tive — reach not only those who leave country when faced with induction orders and fail to return to comply with them in time, but also those who their receive orders already while abroad and refuse to timely make return. provision broadly,

The Service more so as to reads apply departs motives, alien with who evasive regardless reading of his conduct. subsequent This implausible: prevent It would return of such an alien express for the purpose reporting for induction on I time. Congress cannot believe intended the provision to apply asylum to an alien who with flirted the idea prompt but then made return to face the music. It is petitioner’s true that actual return days occurred 'five phoned after his induction date. But he draft board date, that announcing his intent to re-enter and turn in, himself an intention he carried promptly. out On I facts, these could find not purpose “remain- ling] outside the days United States” for those five was “to avoid or evade training or service.” it has been suggested that is none-

Finally, theless deportable as a convicted felon. But the Service did deportation not base the order on this I ground, doubt that could. it Under 66 Stat. 204, U. S. §C. (a) (4), an alien deportable if

“convicted aof crime involving turpitude moral within five entry after and either sentenced confinement or confined therefor in prison a or cor- rective institution, year for a or more.” It is far from clear refusing induction is a “crime involving turpitude.” moral Cf. Chaunt v. United 364 U. S. 350, (1960) (breach peace not such crime because “fraudulent conduct” involved). not To be eligible, statutory crime necessarily must “in- turpitude.” g., moral volv[e] E. Ablett Brownell, v.

F. 2d 625; Giglio United States rel. ex Neelly, 208 F. 2d 337; United States ex Uhl, rel. Guarino v. 107 F. 2d 399. feasible, It is and hardly uncommon, for induction to be refused on grounds which, while legally dem insufficient, onstrate no moral fault. Moreover, it is unclear, at least *5 com petitioner’s crime was us, before that the record “entry” of an into the mitted within five resident aliens trips by permanent abroad States. Brief always statutory “entry.” in a new See do not result Fleuti, (1963); Vargas-Banue Rosenberg v. 374 U. INS, is above, 466 F. 2d 1371. As noted the Service los v. hardly position in a to find an abandonment of petitioner during stay his brief by resident status Canada. setting unusual, the factual of this case

Because unlikely raised often While legal questions recur. to normally deny judg- a sound reason to review, unjust. ment before grossly us is The Service has noted that “penchant up has a his life.” botching Perhaps so, but the Government’s botching up case complete has served to the wreckage.

I would grant summarily certiorari and reverse the judgment.

No. 73-1741. Persico et al. v. States. Douglas A.C. 2d Cir. Mr. Certiorari denied. Justice would grant certiorari as to Pérsico alone.

No. 73-1746. App. Ohio, Ohio. Ct. Johnson Clark County. Certiorari denied. Justice Douglas, with whom Mr. Justice Bren-

Mr. nan and Mr. concur, dissenting. Justice Marshall

Approximately one pleading guilty, peti- month after tioner sought plea her ground vacate on the she had not been adequately rights advised of the thereby waived. The record shows before accepting peti- plea tioner’s the trial judge her right advised of her be tried aby jury and to against confront witnesses her. Petitioner’s motion was denied the trial court and the Appeals Ohio Court of affirmed.