The Supreme Court wrestled with this question in United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez. It involved a question about the extent of 4th Amendment protections. Does it limit all of the searches the United States or only those against "the people?" Well, who are "the people" as understood by the Supreme Court
For background:
- Oyez: United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez.
- Wikipedia: United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez.
Here are the fact pf the case according to Oyez:
Rene Martin Verdugo-Urquidez was a citizen and resident of Mexico. In cooperation with the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA), Mexican police officers apprehended and transported him to the U.S. border, where he was arrested for various narcotics-related offenses. Following his arrest, a DEA agent sought authorization to search Verdugo-Urquidez's residences for evidence. The Director General of the Mexican Federal Judicial Police authorized the searches, but no search warrant from a U.S. magistrate was ever received. At trial, the district court granted Verdugo-Urquidez's motion to suppress the evidence on the ground that the search violated the Fourth Amendment to the Federal Constitution.
And the Question posed to the court:
Does the Fourth Amendment apply to the search and seizure by United States agents of property that is owned by a nonresident alien and located in a foreign country?
The six person majority of the court ruled that it did not.
Some text from the decision's syllabus that explains why:
- Click here for it.
- The Fourth Amendment phrase "the people" seems to be a term of art used in select parts of the Constitution, and contrasts with the words "person" and "accused" used in Articles of the Fifth and Sixth Amendments regulating criminal procedures. This suggests that "the people" refers to a class of persons who are part of a national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that community.
- The Fourth Amendment's drafting history shows that its purpose was to protect the people of the United States against arbitrary action by their own Government, and not to restrain the Federal Government's actions against aliens outside United States territory. Nor is there any indication that the Amendment was understood by the Framers' contemporaries to apply to United States activities directed against aliens in foreign territory or in international waters.
Two separate dissents argued that the restriction applied to all actions of the national government, and suggests the national government was acting hypocritically in how it was enforcing statutory law as opposed to constitutional law.
The Court today creates an antilogy: the Constitution authorizes our Government to enforce our criminal laws abroad, but when Government agents exercise this authority, the Fourth Amendment does not travel with them. This cannot be. At the very least, the Fourth Amendment is an unavoidable correlative of the Government's power to enforce the criminal law.
