hrfh.

“Nothing can destroy a government more quickly than its failure to observe its own laws, or worse, its disregard of the charter of its own existence.”  –Justice Cardozo, 1932

In the United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U.S. 259, Verdugo-Urquidez, a Mexican resident, was arrested on drug charges, and was then brought to the United States to await trial.  While he was in a U.S. correctional facility, the DEA entered and seized property property from Verdugo-Urquidez’s property in Mexico without a search warrant.

The Fourth Amendment reads, “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

The Supreme Court held that Verdugo-Urquidez could not object to the DEA action on Fourth Amendment grounds, because he was not considered to be one of the people the Framers intended to protect when they drafted the clause against unreasonable search and seizure.

Clearly, it is arguable that the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution was drafted to protect the national community from  unjust and undue governmental action.  Should it be so limited to those who have a sufficient connection with the community, as to be considered a part of that community?  How weak or strong must that connection be?  Should we extend the protection of the Constitution to those who are forcibly brought to or detained in this country?  Should we allow it to those who willingly, yet illegally live here?

Should the evidence be permissible in  a court, and if so, what should the legal remedy be against the offending party who confiscated the material?