494 U.S. 259 (1990)
Rene Martin Verdugo-Urquidez is a citizen and resident of Mexico.1 He is believed by the United States Drug Enforcement Agency to be one of the leaders of a large and violent organization in Mexico that smuggles narcotics into the United States.2 Based on a complaint charging him with narcotics-related offenses, the Government obtained a warrant for his arrest on August 3, 1985.3
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.4 There, United States marshals arrested respondent and eventually moved him to a correctional center in San Diego, California, where he remains incarcerated pending trial.5 Respondent subsequently was convicted in a separate prosecution for the kidnaping and torture-murder of DEA Special Agent Enrique Camarena Salazar.6
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.7 Bowen believed the searches would reveal evidence related to respondent's alleged narcotics trafficking activities.8 Bowen telephoned Walter White, the Assistant Special Agent in charge of the DEA office in Mexico City, and asked him to seek authorization for the search from the Director General of the Mexican Federal Judicial Police.9
After several attempts to reach high ranking Mexican officials, White eventually contacted the Director General, who authorized the searches and promised the cooperation of Mexican authorities.10 DEA agents working in concert with officers of the MFJP searched respondent's properties in Mexicali and San Felipe and seized documents. In particular, the search of the Mexicali residence uncovered a tally sheet, which the Government believes reflects the quantities of marijuana smuggled by Verdugo-Urquidez into the United States.11
The District Court granted respondent's motion to suppress evidence seized during the searches.12 A divided panel of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed.13 The Supreme Court granted certiorari.14
Whether the Fourth Amendment applies to the search and seizure by United States agents of property that is owned by a nonresident alien and located in a foreign country?15
The Fourth Amendment extends its reach only to 'the people.'16 This phrase is a term of art.17 It 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.18 The Amendment was adopted to protect the people of the United States against arbitrary action by their own Government in domestic matters.19 It was never intended to restrain federal action against aliens outside United States territory.20
No. Respondent Rene Martin Verdugo-Urquidez is a citizen and resident of Mexico with no previous significant voluntary connection with the United States.21 The DEA searches targeted his residences in Mexicali and San Felipe, Mexico, and were conducted after Mexican authorities authorized the operations and promised cooperation.22 At the time of the searches Verdugo-Urquidez had been present in the United States for only a matter of days following his arrest and transfer.23 These facts place him outside the class protected by the Fourth Amendment for an extraterritorial search of foreign property.24
The Fourth Amendment does not 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.25
Related opinions on this issue
Justice Kennedy joined the judgment but wrote separately to stress that the Constitution does not create any juridical relation between the United States and noncitizens beyond its territory.26 He observed that the absence of this relation does not depend on who ratified the instrument.27 He further explained that adherence to the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement would be impracticable and anomalous in Mexico because of the absence of local judges or magistrates available to issue warrants, differing conceptions of reasonableness and privacy that prevail abroad, and the need to cooperate with foreign officials.28
Justice Stevens concurred in the judgment on narrower grounds.29 He stated that aliens lawfully present in the United States are among those people entitled to Fourth Amendment protection even if brought here against their will.30 He concluded that the search was not unreasonable under the first clause of the Amendment.31
He also concluded that the Warrant Clause has no application to searches of noncitizens' homes in foreign jurisdictions because American magistrates have no power to authorize such searches.32
Joined by Justice Marshall
Justice Brennan dissented, joined by Justice Marshall.33 He argued that the Government may enforce its criminal laws abroad yet the Fourth Amendment must accompany that authority.34 By investigating Verdugo-Urquidez and seeking to hold him accountable under United States criminal laws, the Government treated him as one of the governed.35
Principles of mutuality and fundamental fairness therefore require that the Fourth Amendment protect him when the United States imposes societal obligations such as compliance with its criminal laws.36
Justice Blackmun dissented in part.37 He agreed that when a foreign national is held accountable for violations of United States criminal laws he has effectively been treated as one of the governed and is entitled to Fourth Amendment protections.38 He would have vacated the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remanded for a determination whether the search was reasonable.39
This is because the Warrant Clause is inapplicable when an American magistrate lacks power to authorize a search abroad.40