UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. No. 95-5824

CARLOS PATRICIO FERJ-INOSTROZA,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the

Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria.

Albert V. Bryan, Jr., Senior District Judge.

(CR-95-249-A)

Submitted: June 28, 1996

Decided: November 18, 1997

Before HALL, LUTTIG, and

MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Thomas D. Hughes, IV, WADE, HUGHES & SMIRCINA, P.C.,

Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellant. Helen F. Fahey, United States

Attorney, Nanette L. Davis, Special Assistant United States Attorney,

Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

The Defendant pled guilty to violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 1546(a)

(West Supp. 1996), fraud and misuse of immigration documents. The

Defendant reserved the right to appeal the determination of a suppression issue favoring the Government. He argued that a fraudulent

immigration document seized during execution of a valid search warrant should be suppressed because he was not advised of his rights

under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). For the reasons

expressed below, we affirm.

I

Special agents of the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS)

and a uniformed Fairfax County, Virginia, police officer executed a

search warrant authorizing the agents to search the premises at 6060

Munson Hill Road in Falls Church, Virginia, which the Defendant

occupied with other persons. The warrant allowed the officers to

search for "true, counterfeit and falsely obtained identification documents," including alien registration receipt cards (green cards), INS

admission stamps, birth certificates, social security cards, and driver's

licenses.

One of the residence's occupants admitted the INS agents. The

agents requested that the residents of the house wait in the living

room on the first floor while they conducted the search. The agents

allowed the occupants to make telephone calls and to use the kitchen

and bathroom. The agents did not brandish a weapon. They asked

each of the occupants routine questions about his or her alienage and

immigration status in the United States. The agents stated that they

asked these questions because the occupants spoke with Hispanic

accents, did not have a good command of the English language, and

two persons living at the address were known to be illegal aliens who

had obtained and used fraudulent documents to secure employment.

 2
INS Special Agent Campbell asked the Defendant questions

regarding his identity and asked to see any identity documents. The

Defendant stated that he is Chilean and that he entered the United

States as a tourist and stayed too long. At Agent Campbell's request,

the Defendant showed Campbell his passport and a poor quality counterfeit alien resident card. Agent Campbell's questioning took approximately five to ten minutes, and he reported that the Defendant was

free to refuse to answer his questions. The Defendant was then

arrested as an alien illegally in the United States and transported to

the district INS office. At no time prior to his arrest did the INS

agents advise the Defendant of his rights under Miranda.

II

Questions normally attendant to arrest and custody do not constitute interrogation for Miranda purposes. Rhode Island v. Innis, 446

U.S. 291, 301 (1980); South Dakota v. Neville , 459 U.S. 553, 564

n.15 (1983). Thus, under this exception, routine booking questions

and questions attendant to legitimate police procedures do not require

Miranda warnings. Pennsylvania v. Muniz, 496 U.S. 582, 601 (1990).

The statements in question here fall within the exception for routine questions related to legitimate police procedures. Routine custom

detentions, searches, and interrogations by customs agents and Coast

Guard officials have been held to not require Miranda warnings.

United States v. Silva, 715 F.2d 43, 47 (2d Cir. 1983). INS agents are

in fact authorized and duty bound to question any person they believe

to be an alien as to his or her right to remain in the United States. 8

U.S.C. § 1357(a)(1) (1988). Eliciting routine information, such as that

elicited by Agent Campbell, is not interrogation under Miranda, even

if the information turns out to be incriminating. United States v.

McLaughlin, 777 F.2d 388, 391-92 (8th Cir. 1985).

III

Accordingly, the district court did not err in ruling the fraudulent

green card admissible despite the fact that it was obtained without

benefit of Miranda warnings, and we affirm the court's denial of the

suppression motion. We dispense with oral argument because the

 3
facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials

before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

 4