US v VERDUGO-URQUIDEZ [494 US 259 (1990)]

Nature: Petition for review of the decision of the CA.

Ponente: CJ Rehnquist
Facts:
• Rene Martin Verdugo-Urquidez was a citizen and resident of Mexico. In
cooperation with the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA), Mexican police officers
apprehended and transported him to the U.S. border, where he was arrested for
various narcotics-related offenses. Following his arrest, a DEA agent sought
authorization to search Verdugo-Urquidez's residences for evidence. The Director
General of the Mexican Federal Judicial Police authorized the searches, but no search
warrant from a U.S. magistrate was ever received.
• DISTRICT COURT: Granted Motion to suppress evidence, concluding that the
Fourth Amendment--which protects "the people" against unreasonable searches
and seizures--applied to the searches, and that the DEA agents had failed to justify
searching the premises without a warrant.
• COURT OF APPEALS: Citing Reid v. Covert--which held that American citizens
tried abroad by United States military officials were entitled to Fifth and
Sixth Amendment protections--the court concluded that the Constitution imposes
substantive constraints on the Federal Government, even when it operates abroad.
Relying on INS v. Lopez-Mendoza--where a majority assumed that illegal aliens
in the United States have Fourth Amendment rights--the court observed that it
would be odd to acknowledge that respondent was entitled to trial-related rights
guaranteed by the Fifth and Sixth Amendments, but not to Fourth Amendment
protection.

Issue: WON the Fourth Amendment applies to the search and seizure by United States
agents of property that is owned by a nonresident alien and located in a foreign country. NO

Ratio:
(a) If there were a constitutional violation in this case, it occurred solely in Mexico,
since a Fourth Amendment violation is fully accomplished at the time of an unreasonable
governmental intrusion whether or not the evidence seized is sought for use in a criminal
trial.

(b) The Fourth Amendment phrase "the people" refers to a class of persons who are
part of a national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient
connection with this country to be considered part of that community.

(c) The Fourth Amendment's drafting history shows that its purpose was to protect the
people of the United States against arbitrary action by their own Government and
not to restrain the Federal Government's actions against aliens outside United
States territory. Nor is there any indication that the Amendment was understood by the
Framers' contemporaries to apply to United States activities directed against aliens in
foreign territory or in international waters.

(d) The view that every constitutional provision applies wherever the Government exercises
its power is contrary to this Court's decisions in the Insular Cases, which held that not all
constitutional provisions apply to governmental activity even in territories where
the United States has sovereign power.

(e) Respondent's reliance on Reid, supra, is misplaced, since that case stands only for the
proposition that United States citizens stationed abroad could invoke the protection of the
Fifth and Sixth Amendments. Respondent, however, is an alien with no previous
significant voluntary connection with the United States, and his legal but
involuntary presence here does not indicate any substantial connection with this
country. The Court of Appeals' reliance on INS v. Lopez-Mendoza, supra, is also misplaced,
since that case assumed that, but did not expressly address the question whether, the
Fourth Amendment applies to illegal aliens in the United States. Even assuming such
aliens--who are in this country voluntarily and presumably have accepted some
societal obligations--would be entitled to Fourth Amendment protections, their
situation differs from that of respondent, who had no voluntary connection with
this country, that might place him among "the people."

(f) The Court of Appeals' rule would have significant and deleterious consequences
for the United States in conducting activities beyond its borders. The rule would
apply not only to law enforcement operations abroad, but also to other foreign
operations--such as Armed Forces actions--which might result in "searches and
seizures." Under the rule, aliens with no attachment to this country might bring actions for
damages to remedy claimed violations of the Fourth Amendment in foreign countries or in
international waters, and Members of the Executive and Legislative Branches would be
plunged into a sea of uncertainty as to what might be reasonable in the way of searches and
seizures conducted abroad. Any restrictions on searches and seizures incident to American
action abroad must be imposed by the political branches through diplomatic understanding,
treaty, or legislation.