News & Insights

Key Question

Does the Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable searches and seizures extend to a nonresident alien whose property is located outside the United States?

Court’s Analysis

• Text of the Fourth Amendment:

  The Fourth Amendment guarantees the rights of “the people” against unreasonable searches. The Court interpreted “the people” as those who are part of the U.S. national community or have sufficient connections to the country. Verdugo-Urquidez, a nonresident alien with no voluntary ties to the U.S., fell outside this category.

• Purpose and History:

  The Fourth Amendment was designed to protect U.S. citizens and residents from arbitrary government action. The Framers did not intend it to regulate U.S. actions against foreigners outside U.S. borders.

• Practical Implications:

  Applying the Fourth Amendment to foreign searches could hamper U.S. law enforcement and military operations abroad, as U.S. agents would need to navigate foreign legal systems or obtain meaningless U.S. warrants.

Outcome

The Supreme Court ruled that the Fourth Amendment does not apply to searches and seizures conducted by U.S. agents on foreign soil against nonresident aliens. Thus, the evidence from the Mexican searches could be used in Verdugo-Urquidez’s trial.

Key Takeaways for Everyday Readers

• The Fourth Amendment protects people in the U.S. (citizens or those with substantial ties) from unreasonable government searches but does not extend to foreign nationals with no ties to the U.S., even if their property is searched by U.S. agents abroad.
• This decision underscores the limits of U.S. constitutional protections when dealing with noncitizens and foreign territories.