Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): fraud. See Grageda v. U.S. INS, 12 F.3d 919, 921 (9th Cir.1993); Goldeshtein, 8 F.3d at 647. However, we have included in this category acts “of baseness or depravity contrary to accepted moral standards,” Grageda, 12 F.3d at 921 (quotation omitted), such as spousal abuse, child abuse, and statutory rape which involve moral turpitude “by their very nature.” See id. at 922 (spousal abuse); Guerrero de Nodahl v. INS, 407 F.2d 1405, 1406-07 (9th Cir.1969) (child abuse); Bendel v. Nagle, 17 F.2d 719, 720 (9th Cir.1927) (statutory rape). Incest also involves an act of baseness or depravity contrary to accepted moral standards, and we hold that it too is a “crime involving moral turpitude.” See also II American Law Institute, Model Penal Code and Commentaries § 230.2 cmt. 2(d), 406-07 (1980) (<HOLDING>). Gonzalez-Alvarado, 39 F.3d at 246. Taking a 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that although a state may be free to develop its own laws of search and seizure to meet law enforcement needs such laws may not authorize police conduct which trenches upon fourth amendment rights regardless of the labels which it attaches to such conduct (B) recognizing general rule (C) holding the statutory scheme of two federal laws was not void for vagueness and did not violate equal protection or due process even though the defendants conduct violated both laws (D) recognizing that laws against incest reinforce a community norm of general and intense hostility toward such conduct (E) recognizing this as the general rule
Output (English): holding the statutory scheme of two federal laws was not void for vagueness and did not violate equal protection or due process even though the defendants conduct violated both laws