Argument of Chief Justice Rehnquist
Mr. Rehnquist: I have the opinions of the Court to announce in two cases.
The first is United States versus Verdugo-Urquidez.
Here, the respondent, Rene Martin Verdugo-Urquidez, was a Mexican citizen and resident whom the Drug Enforcement Agency believed to be a leader of an organization that smuggles narcotics into this country.
The Mexican police officers apprehended him in Mexico and transported him to the United States boarder where he was arrested by United States marshals.
Shortly afterwards, DEA agents working in concert with Mexican police searched his residence in Mexico and seized certain documents.
The District Court granted his motion to suppress evidence seized during the searches concluding that the Fourth Amendment applied to the searches and that the DEA agents failed to justify searching respondent’s premisses without a warrant, and the Court of Appeals agreed with this view.
In an opinion filed today, we hold that the Fourth Amendment does not apply to the search and seizure by United States agents of property owned by a non-resident alien and located in a foreign country.
The text of the Fourth Amendment, its history, and our cases interpreting the provision indicate that the Fourth Amendment was not intended to apply in this situation.
The respondent is an alien with no previous voluntary connection with this country, it is legal but involuntary presence here does not indicate any such connection.
Any restrictions on searches and seizures incident to American action abroad must be imposed by the political branches through diplomatic understanding, treaty, or legislation.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is therefore reversed.
Justice Kennedy has filed a concurring opinion; Justice Stevens has filed an opinion concurring in the judgment; Justice Brennan has filed a dissenting opinion in which Justice Marshall joins; Justice Blackmun has filed a dissenting opinion.
