# United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez

> Supreme Court of the United States · February 28, 1990 · 494 U.S. 259

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9431930

## Case

- **Full name:** United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez
- **Court:** Supreme Court of the United States
- **Decided:** February 28, 1990
- **Citations:** 494 U.S. 259; 110 S. Ct. 1056; 108 L. Ed. 2d 222; 1990 U.S. LEXIS 1175; 1990 WL 16772
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Blackmun
- **Judges:** Stevens', Rehnquist, White, O'Connor, Scalia, Kennedy, Stevens, Brennan, Marshall, Blackmun
- **Cited by:** 716 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9431930

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- explaining that the Constitution’s use of the phrase “the people” in the First Amendment “sug- gests that ‘the people’ protected by” that amendment “refers to a class of persons who are part of a national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient 35 AKHMETSHIN v. BR…
- holding that the Fourth Amendment protects only “the people” of the United States and has no application to search-and-seizure challenges where the challenger is a non-citizen/non-resident alien with no 39 Case: 17-14294 Date Filed: 01/30/2020 Page: 40 of 97 voluntary attachme…
- explaining that several factors counsel against overseas application of the warrant requirement including: “the absence of local judges or magistrates available to issue warrants, the differing and perhaps unascertainable conceptions of reasonableness and privacy that prevail …
- explaining that the Constitution’s use of the phrase “the people” in the First Amendment “suggests that ‘the people’ protected by” that amendment “refers to a class of persons who are part of a national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this …
- stating the Fourth Amendment does not apply to the search and seizure by U.S. agents of property that is owned by a nonresident alien and located in a foreign country as aliens do not enjoy the protections of the Fourth Amendment if they have no previous significant voluntary …

## Opinion text

Justice Blackmun,
dissenting.
I cannot accept the Court of Appeals’ conclusion, echoed in some portions of Justice Brennan’s dissent, that the Fourth Amendment governs every action by an American official that can be characterized as a search or seizure. American agents acting abroad generally do not purport to exercise sovereign authority over the foreign nationals with whom they come in contact. The relationship between these agents and foreign nationals is therefore fundamentally different from the relationship between United States officials and individuals residing within this country.
I am inclined to agree with Justice Brennan, however, that when a foreign national is held accountable for purported violations of United States criminal laws, he has effectively been treated as one of “the governed” and therefore is entitled to Fourth Amendment protections. Although the Government’s exercise of power abroad does not ordinarily implicate the Fourth Amendment, the enforcement of domestic criminal law seems to me to be the paradigmatic exercise of sovereignty over those who are compelled to obey. In any event, as Justice Stevens notes, ante, at 279, respondent was lawfully (though involuntarily) within this country at the time the search occurred. Under these circumstances I believe that respondent is entitled to invoke protections of the Fourth Amendment. I agree with the Government, however, that an American magistrate’s lack of power to authorize a search abroad renders the Warrant Clause inapplicable to the search of a noncitizen’s residence outside this country.
The Fourth Amendment nevertheless requires that the search be “reasonable.” And when the purpose of a search is *298 the procurement of evidence for a criminal prosecution, we have consistently held that the search, to be reasonable, must be based upon probable cause. Neither the District Court nor the Court of Appeals addressed the issue of probable cause, and I do not believe that a reliable determination could be made on the basis of the record before us. I therefore would vacate the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand the case for further proceedings.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9431930. Public record. Not legal advice.