The Oyez Project Virtual Tour of the Supreme Court Building

Abstract

Argument: Tuesday, November 7, 1989
Decision: Wednesday, February 28, 1990
Issues: Criminal Procedure, Search and Seizure

Advocates

Michael Pancer (Argued the cause for the respondent)
Lawrence S. Robbins (Argued the cause for the United States)

Facts of the Case

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. At trial, the district court granted Verdugo-Urquidez's motion to suppress the evidence on the ground that the search violated the Fourth Amendment to the Federal Constitution.

Question

Does the Fourth Amendment apply to the search and seizure by United States agents of property that is owned by a nonresident alien and located in a foreign country?

Conclusion

No. The text of the Fourth Amendment concerns "the people," suggesting a concern with persons who are part of the national community, as contrasted with aliens without any substantial connection to the U.S. Moreover, extraterritorial aliens are not even entitled to rights under the Fifth Amendment, which speaks in the relatively more universal term of "person." And non-"fundamental" rights are not even guaranteed to inhabitants of unincorporated territories under U.S sovereign control, much less aliens. Therefore, any restrictions on searches and seizures of nonresident aliens and their foreign property must be imposed by the political branches through diplomatic understanding, treaty or legislation.

Supreme Court Justice Opinions and Votes (by Ideology)

Sort by Seniority
(More information here)
Decision: 6 votes for United States, 3 vote(s) against
Legal Provision: Amendment 4: Fourth Amendment
Voted with the minority, joined Brennan's dissent
Marshall
Wrote a dissent
Brennan
Wrote a special concurrence
Stevens
Wrote a dissent
Blackmun
Voted with the majority
White
Wrote a regular concurrence
Kennedy
Voted with the majority
O'Connor
Voted with the majority
Scalia
Wrote the majority opinion
Rehnquist
Full Opinion by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist

Cite this page

The Oyez Project, United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U.S. 259 (1990),
available at: <http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1989/1989_88_1353/>
(last visited ).