rene verdugo urquidez released
Footnote 4 Justice Stevens also authored a concurring opinion, contending that the Fourth Amendment and its accompanying prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures does apply in such cases, but concluding that this search and seizure was reasonable because it was done with the permission and assistance of the government of Mexico and because no U.S. court would have had the authority to issue a warrant for such a search. App. U.S. 10, 13 See M. Palmer, Stoddert's War: Naval Operations During the Quasi-War with France, 1798-1801, p. 235 (1987). 490 U.S. 291 415 By its own regulations, the United States Government has conceded that although an American warrant might be a "dead letter" in a foreign country, a warrant procedure in an American court plays a vital and indispensable role in circumscribing the discretion of agents of the Federal Government. denied, Federal prosecutors said Camarena was taken to Caro Quinteros house in Guadalajara and tortured for more than 24 hours before he was finally killed with several heavy blows to the head. 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. 404 Department of the Army regulations state that the Army must seek a "judicial warrant" from a United States court whenever the Army seeks to intercept the wire or oral communications of a person not subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice outside of the United States and its territories. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is accordingly. I therefore would vacate the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand the case for further proceedings. U.S. 593, 619 After those July meetings, his boss helped Bernab receive a temporary visa to return to the United States, where he was arrested and tried. -626 (1886). We hold that it does not. Their petition gained momentum in 2014. In Johnson, 21 German nationals were convicted of engaging in continued military activity against the United States after the surrender of Germany and before the surrender of Japan in World War II. I cannot agree with JUSTICE BLACKMUN and JUSTICE STEVENS that the Warrant Clause has no application to searches Narcotics Agents, Cf. U.S. 288, 347 denied, - where a majority assumed that illegal aliens in the United States have Fourth Amendment rights - the court observed that it would be odd to acknowledge that respondent was entitled to trial-related rights guaranteed by the Fifth and Sixth Amendments, but not to Fourth Amendment protection. Publication date. (1914) (Fifth Amendment grand jury provision inapplicable in Philippines); Dorr v. United States, (emphasis added). U.S. 386 10 Based on a complaint charging respondent with various narcotics-related offenses . U.S. 939 Id., at 1230. ] The Fourth Amendment contains no express or implied territorial limitations, and the majority does not hold that the Fourth Amendment is inapplicable to searches outside the United States and its territories. An admitted marijuana trafficker identified as a top lieutenant to a Mexican drug kingpin was sentenced Wednesday to 240 years in prison and an additional life term for his role in the kidnaping, torture and murder of a U.S. drug agent in Mexico. (1978). The majority's suggestion that the Drafters could have used "person" ignores the fact that the Fourth Amendment then would have begun quite awkwardly: "The right of persons to be secure in their persons . He was . Americans vehemently attacked the notion that rights were matters of "`favor and grace,'" given to the people from the Government. Const., Amdt. (1958). U.S. 1032 Warden v. Hayden, They employ thousands of workers. Bernab's ensuing 1990 trial proved to be especially high-profile because of his co-defendants: another former bodyguard named Javier Vsquez Velasco, infamous Honduran drug trafficker Juan Ramn Matta-Ballesteros, and the brother-in-law of former Mexican president Luis Echeverra, Rubn Zuno Arce. Nothing approaching a violation of due process has occurred in this case. (1950). See United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, No. More broadly, he viewed the Constitution as a "compact" among the people of the United States, and the protections of the Fourth Amendment were expressly limited to "the people." Feinstein has vowed to return to Washington, but what happens if she doesnt? has been accorded a generous and ascending scale of rights as he increases his identity with our society." Rule Crim. U.S. 259, 284] The District Court granted respondent's motion to suppress evidence seized during the searches, concluding that the Fourth Amendment applied to the searches and that the DEA agents had failed to justify searching respondent's premises without a warrant. A team of DEA agents then drove to Mexico, met with Mexican officials, and arrived at the first of respondent's two residences after dark. The global view taken by the Court of Appeals of the application of the Constitution is also contrary to this Court's decisions in the Insular Cases, which held that not every constitutional provision applies to governmental activity even where the United States has sovereign power. In 1990, two members of the cartel were convicted of charges relating to the kidnap and murder. Rene Martin Verdugo-Urquidez was a citizen and resident of Mexico. None of these, however, justifies the majority's cramped interpretation of the Fourth Amendment's applicability. Undercover DEA agents in Mexico began circling Bernab in 1989 after flipping his new boss at a Guadalajara security firm into becoming a confidential informant. (1971), and Foley v. Connelie, "The people" are "the governed.". Congress cannot define the contours of the Constitution. Proc. The jury found Bernab guilty on three charges, two related to Camarenas kidnapping and murder and a third as an accessory for helping Caro Quintero escape Mexico. In January 1986, Mexican police officers, after discussions with United States marshals, apprehended Verdugo-Urquidez in Mexico and transported him to the United States Border Patrol station in Calexico, California. 403 (1989). 339 The rule adopted by the Court of Appeals would apply not only to law enforcement operations abroad, but also to other foreign policy operations which might result in "searches or seizures." Many of those who are implicated say they are innocent. Following respondent's arrest, Terry Bowen, a DEA agent assigned to the Calexico DEA office, decided to arrange for searches of Verdugo-Urquidez's Mexican residences located in Mexicali and San Felipe. For better or for worse, we live in a world of nation-states in which our Government must be able to "functio[n] effectively in the company of sovereign nations." Army Regulation 190-53 2-2(b) (1986). United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U.S. 259 (1990), was a United States Supreme Court decision that determined that 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.[1]. Id., at 63, n. 4; Hagans v. Lavine, 339 Id., at 770. [494 In response to an outstanding United States warrant for his arrest, several Mexican police officers apprehended Verdugo-Urquidez on January 24, 1986, in Mexico.10 The Mexi-can officers handcuffed Verdugo-Urquidez, forced him to lie face Our statements in Lopez-Mendoza are therefore not dispositive of how the Court would rule on a Fourth Amendment claim by illegal aliens in the United States if such a claim were squarely before us. The Eisentrager opinion acknowledged that in some cases constitutional provisions extend beyond the citizenry; "[t]he alien . Congressional Research Service, Instances of Use of United States Armed Forces Abroad, 1798-1989 (E. Collier ed. . See also An Act Further to Suspend the Commercial Intercourse Between the United States and France, ch. of State Police, Ante, at 268. Many situations involving sensitive operations abroad likely would involve exigent circumstances such that the warrant requirement would be excused. . Footnote 8 1961) (A. Hamilton); 1 Annals of Cong. (1936), stand for the proposition that we must interpret constitutional protections in light of the undoubted power of the United States to take actions to assert its legitimate power and authority abroad. 41(a). denied, as amici curiae urging affirmance. Your client was there.. 426 ] The Sherman Act defines "person" to include foreign corporations, 15 U.S.C. [ . 116 613. The driving force behind the adoption of the Amendment, as suggested by Madison's advocacy, was widespread hostility among the former colonists to the issuance of writs of assistance empowering revenue officers to search suspected places for smuggled goods, and general search warrants permitting the search of private houses, often to uncover papers that might be used to convict persons of libel. Throughout that entire process, no speaker or commentator, pro or con, referred to the term "the people" as a limitation. 4 Respondent also contends that to treat aliens differently from citizens with respect to the Fourth Amendment somehow violates the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. U.S. 259, 262]. U.S. 259, 281] 856 F.2d 1214, 1226 (CA9 1988). The Drafters purposely did not use the term "accused." As the Court wrote: The Insular Cases, Balzac v. Porto Rico, because our Government, by investigating and prosecuting him, has made him one of "the governed." With respect, I submit these words do not detract from its force or its reach. 395 190 Malone's testimony in the two Camarena murder trials, along with numerous other high profile cases, have since been determined to exceed the limits of science. Malone said he found hairs at the alleged crime scene that were Camarenas, evidence which later was determined to be insufficient. In 1988, three other cartel bodyguards were convicted in the United States for their role in Camarena's murder. See Boyd v. United States, U.S. 453 Id., at 101a. . U.S. 1019 Talbot v. Seeman, 1 Cranch 1, 31 (1801) (seizure of neutral ship lawful where American captain had probable cause to believe vessel was French), but it was never suggested that the Fourth Amendment restrained the authority of Congress or of United States agents to conduct operations such as this. Although recognizing that "an American search warrant would be of no legal validity in Mexico," the majority deemed it sufficient that a warrant would have "substantial constitutional value in this country." Verdugo-Urquidez,1 decided by the U.S. Supreme Court on February 28, 1990, holds that the U.S. Constitution's Fourth Amendment protection against 'unreasonable . The United States District Court agreed, and invoked the exclusionary rule to suppress the documents (i.e., to prevent them from being used as evidence). Relying on the absence of any discussion of the Fourth Amendment in these decisions, however, runs directly contrary to the majority's admonition that the Court only truly decides that which it "expressly address[es]." Raul Lopez Alvarez, 29, a former Mexican state police officer who was also convicted of participating in the two slayings, is to be sentenced Friday. 12 See, e. g., Balzac v. Porto Rico, See Fed. Chief Justice Rehnquist authored the opinion for the Court, joined by Justices White, Scalia, Kennedy and O'Connor, contending that "the people" intended to be protected by the Fourth Amendment were the people of the United States, and that the defendant's "legal but involuntary presence" on U.S. soil (a direct result of his arrest) failed to create a sufficient relationship with the U.S. to allow him to call upon the Constitution for protection.[3]. After the Government obtained an arrest warrant for respondent - a Mexican citizen and resident believed to be a leader of an organization that smuggles narcotics into this country - he was apprehended by Mexican police and transported here, where he was arrested. U.S. 1032 A pilot and DEA informant of Camarena's named Alfredo Zavala was also murdered. The Fourth Amendment does not apply to the search and seizure by United States agents of property owned by a nonresident alien and located in a foreign country. [494 (1989). 273 See, e. g., Plyler v. Doe, U.S. 298 (1904); Balzac v. Porto Rico, U.S. 259, 299]. U.S. 906 856 F.2d, at 1223. D.C. 147, 156, 445 F.2d 217, 225, cert. Because the Court of Appeals found that the search violated the Warrant Clause, it never reviewed the District Court's alternative holding that the search was unreasonable even if no warrant were required. A $300-million (minimum) gondola to Dodger Stadium? Rafeedie said that could be taken as a boast and as a reference to Camarena. They are constitutional decisions of this Court expressly according differing protection to aliens than to citizens, based on our conclusion that the particular provisions in question were not intended to extend to aliens in the same degree as to citizens. The agents found documents believed to be the defendant's records of his marijuana shipments. That's when the Office of Inspector General released a report that raised questions about FBI cases that contributed to the evidence presented in both of these trials. Michael Pancer argued the cause for respondent. 469 [494 -6 (1957): "The United States is entirely a creature of the Constitution. -14 (1948) (footnotes omitted): The Warrant Clause cannot be ignored simply because Congress has not given any United States magistrate authority to issue search warrants for foreign searches. The Federalist No. Only seven years after the ratification of the Amendment, French interference with American commercial vessels engaged in neutral trade triggered what came to be known as the "undeclared war" with France. (1931) (Just Compensation Clause of Fifth Amendment); Wong Wing v. United States, The majority today brushes aside the principles of mutuality and fundamental fairness that are central to our Nation's constitutional conscience. (1978), for this proposition. 444 . As Justice Brandeis warned in Olmstead v. United States, These cases were limited to their facts long ago, see Reid v. Covert, The District Court found that, even if a warrant were not required for this search, the search was nevertheless unreasonable. Column: Does racism make you too stupid to be a cop? (1901) (Revenue Clauses of Constitution inapplicable to Puerto Rico). In Johnson v. Eisentrager, Perez v. Brownell, 182 Respondent Rene Martin Verdugo-Urquidez is a citizen and resident of Mexico. We should note, however, that the absence of Respondent is an alien who has had no previous significant voluntary connection with the United States, so these cases avail him not. Post, at 279. It can only act in accordance with all the limitations imposed by the Constitution." Situations threatening to important American interests may arise halfway around the globe, situations which in the view of the political branches of our Government require an American response with armed force. 462 354 Ante, at 265. These traffickers have accumulated massive wealth. 356 (1904), and Hawaii v. Mankichi, The 1985 murder of Agent Enrique Kiki Camarena in Mexico is one of the most notorious incidents in U.S. law enforcement history, and Juan Jos Bernab played a central role, according to U.S. authorities. - Decided: Feb. 28, 1990. Const., Art. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW RE: SPEEDY TRIAL ACT . U.S. 259, 264] I can assure you that this is a man that will go back to drug trafficking because that is the only profession that this man knows, said Vigil. Id., at 438. (1896) (resident aliens entitled to Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights); Yick Wo v. Hopkins, Absent exigent circumstances or consent, it must obtain a I do agree, however, with the Government's submission that the search conducted by the United States agents with the approval and cooperation of the Mexican authorities was not "unreasonable" as that term is used in the first Clause of the Amendment. United States, and the place searched was located in Mexico. Decided June 22, 1994. U.S. 259, 294] They could have limited the right to "citizens," "freemen," "residents," or "the American people." After receiving custody of Verdugo-Urquidez in the United States, the DEA obtained permission from . U.S. 763 The Amendment was introduced on the floor of Congress, considered by Committee, debated by the House of Representatives and the Senate, and submitted to the 13 States for approval. During the trial, Bernab admited to being a bodyguard for Fonseca but denied being involved in Camarenas murder. for Cert. Because we cannot expect others to respect our laws until we respect our Constitution, I respectfully dissent. The DEA decided that it would be a good idea to search the defendant's home, so agents received authorization from the Mexican government to conduct the search. The Court of Appeals affirmed. Before analyzing the scope of the Fourth Amendment, we think it significant to note that it operates in a different manner than the Fifth Amendment, which is not at issue in this case. [2] The government then appealed to the Supreme Court. 140 This public naval force consisted of only 45 vessels, so Congress also gave the President power to grant to the owners of private armed ships and vessels of the United States "special commissions," which would allow them "the same license and authority for the subduing, seizing and capturing any armed French vessel, and for the recapture of the vessels, goods and effects of the people of the United States, as the public armed vessels of the United States may by law have." Grundman, The New Imperialism: The Extraterritorial Application of United States Law, 14 Int'l Law. B. Bailyn, supra, at 187 (quoting John Dickinson). KENNEDY, J., filed a concurring opinion, post, p. 275. The search did not begin until approximately 10 p.m. the day after respondent was taken into custody. Therefore, no agent of the federal government could ever conduct a search that was not governed by the Fourth Amendment. He was . (1984), where a majority of Justices assumed that illegal aliens in the United States have Fourth Amendment rights, the Ninth Circuit majority found it "difficult to conclude that Verdugo-Urquidez lacks these same protections." U.S. 259, 289] Learn more about FindLaws newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy. On discovering that a stateside warrant had been issued for alleged drug lord Rene Martin Verdugo- Urquidez, Mexican police arrested and delivered him to United States authorities. (1984), where a majority of Justices assumed that the Fourth Amendment applied to illegal aliens in the United States. His release outraged U.S. officials who expected his extradition after finishing his sentence in Mexico. . 195 354 [494 (emphasis added). 457 We do know that torture and murder took place at that house, Rafeedie said. But this principle is only a first step in resolving this case. And even were Bivens deemed wholly inapplicable in cases of foreign activity, that would not obviate the problems attending the application of the Fourth Amendment abroad to aliens. (holding that States cannot deny to illegal aliens the free public education they provide to citizens and legally documented aliens), it is not a sensible requirement when our Government chooses to impose our criminal laws on others. U.S. 91 491 The Court admits that "the people" extends beyond the citizenry, but leaves the precise contours of its "sufficient connection" test unclear. (1957), which held that American citizens tried by United States military authorities in a foreign country were entitled to the protections of the Fifth and Sixth Amendments, and concluded that "[t]he Constitution imposes substantive constraints on the federal government, even when it operates abroad." . See Best v. United States, 184 F.2d 131. U.S. 338, 354 Citing Reid v. Covert, Similarly, the Court has recognized that there may be certain situations in which the offensive use of constitutional rights should be limited. in this country. Previous page. . Whereas the British Parliament was unconstrained, the Framers intended to create a Government of limited powers. 84, p. 513 (C. Rossiter ed. Because the Fourth Amendment governs the search of respondent's Mexican residences, the District Court properly suppressed the evidence found in that search because the officers conducting the search did not obtain a warrant. (1903) (provisions on indictment by grand jury and jury trial inapplicable in Hawaii); Downes v. Bidwell, Language. The Court held that the Fourth Amendment's prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures did not apply where United States agents searched and seized property located in a foreign country owned by a nonresident alien in the United States. ] In this discussion, the Court implicitly suggests that the Fourth Amendment may not protect illegal aliens in the United States. U.S. 244 1 He is believed by the United States Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) to be one of the leaders of a large and violent organization in Mexico that smuggles narcotics into the United States. 354 *. The officers arrested Verdugo-Urquidez, placed him in the back of an unmarked car, and forced him to lie down on the seat with his face covered by a jacket. U.S. 244 138 (CA1 1950) ("Obviously, Congress may not nullify the guarantees of the Fourth Amendment by the simple expedient of obligations." (1969). 473 not empowering any judicial officer to act on an application for a warrant"), cert. The primary purpose of the warrant requirement is its assurance of neutrality. The email address cannot be subscribed. and deny him the protection from unreasonable searches and seizures afforded under the fourth amendment." Contact us. For the fourth meeting, the DEA agents got Bernab drunk. Respondent Rene Martin Verdugo-Urquidez is a citizen and resident of Mexico. Nor is the Warrant Clause inapplicable merely because a warrant from a United States magistrate could not "authorize" a search in a foreign country. of noncitizens' homes in foreign jurisdictions because American magistrates lack the power to authorize such searches. U.S. 763 With him on the brief were Charles L. Goldberg and Patrick Q. U.S. 763 32(b) (violence against an individual aboard or destruction of any "civil aircraft registered in a country other than the United States while such aircraft is in flight"); 111 (assaulting, resisting, or impeding certain officers or employees); 115 (influencing, impeding, or retaliating against a federal official by threatening or injuring a family member); 1114, 1117 (murder, attempted murder, and conspiracy to murder certain federal officers and employees); 1201(a)(5) (kidnaping of federal officers and employees listed in 1114); 1201 (e) (kidnaping of "an internationally protected person," if the alleged offender is found in the United States, "irrespective of the place where the offense was committed or the nationality of the victim or the alleged offender"); 1203 (hostage taking outside the United States, if the offender or the person seized is a United States national, if the offender is found in the United States, or if "the governmental organization sought to be compelled is the Government of the United States"); 1546 (fraud and [ (1951). (1903), are likewise inapposite. denied, (1903); Dorr v. United States, Respondent is an alien who has had no previous significant voluntary Based on a complaint charging respondent with various narcotics-related offenses . [494 The U.S. (1967). Numerous lower courts, however, have held that illegal aliens in the United States are protected by the Fourth Amendment, and not a single lower court has held to the contrary. even though he was brought and held here against his will." Under these circumstances, the Fourth Amendment has no application. We think that the text of the Fourth Amendment, its history, and our cases discussing the application of the Constitution to aliens and extraterritorially require rejection of respondent's claim. 101a. [ The DEA believes that he is one of the leaders of a large Mexico-based narcotics organization involved in smuggling large quantities of cocaine, heroin, and marijuana into the United . U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) delivered Bernab, 62, to Mexican immigration officials on the bridge that connects El Paso, Texas, and Ciudad Juarez, Chihuahua on April 9. (1945) (resident aliens have First Amendment rights); Russian Volunteer Fleet v. United States, See C. Warren, The Making of the Constitution 508-509 (1928); The Federalist No. Although conduct by law enforcement officials prior to trial may ultimately impair that right, a constitutional violation occurs only at trial. See also ante, at 277 (KENNEDY, J., concurring) ("[T]he Government may act only as the Constitution authorizes, whether the actions in question are foreign or domestic"). U.S. 528, 535 (1984). 1981). (1979); United States v. Rose, 570 F.2d 1358, 1362 (CA9 1978). (quoting Yick Wo, supra, at 369); Kwong Hai Chew, supra, at 596, n. 5("The Bill of Rights is a futile authority for the alien seeking admission for the first time to these shores. misuse of visas, permits, and other immigration documents); 2331 (terrorist acts abroad against United States nationals); 49 U.S.C. If the foreign country in which the interception will occur has certain requirements that must be met before other nations can intercept wire or oral communications, an American judicial warrant will not alone authorize the interception under international law.