United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez

In United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 108 L. Ed. 2d 222 (1990), the defendant was a Mexican citizen and resident who was suspected of involvement in drug trafficking and in crimes connected to the murder of a United States drug enforcement agent. Mexican authorities apprehended him in Mexico and transferred him to the custody of United States authorities, where he faced prosecution in the United States.

After he was in United States custody, agents from the Drug Enforcement Administration worked with Mexican officials to search the defendant’s residences in Mexico. The searches occurred in Mexico and were conducted without a warrant issued by a United States judge. During those searches, agents seized documents that the government wanted to use in the criminal case.

The defendant moved to suppress the evidence, arguing that the searches violated the Fourth Amendment. The lower courts agreed with him and suppressed the evidence. The government appealed, and the case reached the Supreme Court of the United States.

The plain-English question was whether the Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable searches and seizures applies when United States agents search property in a foreign country that belongs to a foreign citizen who is not part of the United States community.

More specifically, the Court had to decide whether a Mexican citizen and resident, whose homes in Mexico were searched by United States agents working with Mexican officials, could rely on the Fourth Amendment to suppress evidence in a United States criminal prosecution.

The Supreme Court ruled for the United States. The Court held that the Fourth Amendment did not apply to the search and seizure by United States agents of property located in Mexico and owned by a nonresident alien who lacked sufficient connection to the United States.

The Court focused on the Fourth Amendment’s reference to “the people.” It explained that this phrase refers to persons who are part of the national community or who have developed enough connection with the United States to be considered within that protected group. The defendant’s involuntary presence in the United States for prosecution did not create that kind of connection.

The practical rule from United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez is that the Fourth Amendment does not require a United States warrant for an overseas search of foreign property owned by a foreign national who has no substantial voluntary connection to the United States. The Court also noted the practical problem that United States magistrates generally lack authority to issue warrants for searches of property located in another country.

For officers and investigators, United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez is mainly a case about the reach of the Fourth Amendment outside the United States. It does not say that every overseas search by United States law enforcement is automatically proper. It says that, under the facts of this case, the Fourth Amendment did not protect a nonresident foreign citizen’s property located in a foreign country.

If United States officers are involved in an investigation abroad, this case means a United States search warrant may not be constitutionally required when the target is a foreign national with no substantial voluntary connection to the United States and the property is located outside the United States. But officers should not read the case as permission to ignore foreign law, treaties, agency policy, supervisory requirements, or rules governing cooperation with foreign officials.

The case also should not be overstated for domestic policing. Searches inside the United States remain governed by the Fourth Amendment. Likewise, the result may be different if the person searched is a United States citizen, a lawful resident, or another person with sufficient voluntary ties to the United States. Those details matter.

For detectives and federal task force officers, the key takeaway is to identify the location of the search, the status of the person whose property is searched, and the person’s connection to the United States before assuming which constitutional rules apply. When an investigation crosses national borders, legal review and coordination with prosecutors are especially important.