3 ms·

Thanks for this. The OP suggested that non-citizens inside the US aren't afforded the same Constitutional protections as citizens. I believe this is incorrect.

Thanks for this. The OP suggested that non-citizens inside the US aren't afforded the same Constitutional protections as citizens. I believe this is incorrect. From the Wikipedia article about the case you cited [1]: "...Fourth Amendment protections do not apply to searches and seizures by United States agents of property owned by a nonresident alien in a foreign country. [emphasis mine]" [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Verdugo-Urquidez http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Verdugo-Urquid...

DannyBee 13y ago
It is not incorrect. Heck, it's even been tested on the bar exam as part of the MBE, using the canadian fishing example I gave, which is a real MBE question based on a real case (I am a bit too lazy to look it up). This is how the case has been interpreted by every court to follow it. See US v. Guitterez, 983 F.Supp. 905 for a fourth amendment example from the 9th circuit. Here is another from the fifth circuit: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. ARMANDO PORTILLO-MUNOZ (i don't have cite handy) "Portillo relies on Verdugo-Urquidez and argues that he has sufficient connections with the United States to be included in this definition of "the people," but neither this court nor the Supreme Court has held that the Fourth Amendment extends to a native and citizen of another nation who entered and remained in the United States illegally" There are something like 2000+ cites to Verdugo, and and the general viewpoint of courts so far is as i said it is. If you've got a court of appeals or SCOTUS cite to the contrary, where a court has held that they do apply, i'd love to see it.
- kevinskii 13y ago
  Thanks, I stand corrected. For anyone else interested, The Volokh Conspiracy blog has a detailed post on this very topic: http://www.volokh.com/2011/06/13/the-constitutional-rights-of-illegal-aliens-under-the-first-second-and-fourth-amendments/ http://www.volokh.com/2011/06/13/the-constitutional-rights-o...
bradleyjg 13y ago
Right that's the holding, but the dicta suggests that some non-resident, non-citizens (i.e. temporary visitors) also are unprotected by the fourth amendment. Various lower court decisions have fleshed out what constitutes "substantial connections".

DannyBee 13y ago

It is not incorrect. Heck, it's even been tested on the bar exam as part of the MBE, using the canadian fishing example I gave, which is a real MBE question based on a real case (I am a bit too lazy to look it up). This is how the case has been interpreted by every court to follow it. See US v. Guitterez, 983 F.Supp. 905 for a fourth amendment example from the 9th circuit. Here is another from the fifth circuit: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. ARMANDO PORTILLO-MUNOZ (i don't have cite handy) "Portillo relies on Verdugo-Urquidez and argues that he has sufficient connections with the United States to be included in this definition of "the people," but neither this court nor the Supreme Court has held that the Fourth Amendment extends to a native and citizen of another nation who entered and remained in the United States illegally" There are something like 2000+ cites to Verdugo, and and the general viewpoint of courts so far is as i said it is. If you've got a court of appeals or SCOTUS cite to the contrary, where a court has held that they do apply, i'd love to see it.

kevinskii 13y ago
Thanks, I stand corrected. For anyone else interested, The Volokh Conspiracy blog has a detailed post on this very topic: http://www.volokh.com/2011/06/13/the-constitutional-rights-of-illegal-aliens-under-the-first-second-and-fourth-amendments/ http://www.volokh.com/2011/06/13/the-constitutional-rights-o...

bradleyjg 13y ago

Right that's the holding, but the dicta suggests that some non-resident, non-citizens (i.e. temporary visitors) also are unprotected by the fourth amendment. Various lower court decisions have fleshed out what constitutes "substantial connections".