Whatever Happened to the Fourth Amendment: Undocumented Immigrants' Rights after INS v. Lopenz-Mendoza and United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez

Authors

Victor C. Romero, Penn State LawFollow

Document Type

Article

Publication Date

1992

Abstract

This Note rejects the Court's approach to the Fourth Amendment in Lopez and Verdugo and attempts to redefine the boundaries of Fourth Amendment protections for undocumented immigrants. Part I examines the impact of the Lopez and Verdugo decisions upon undocumented immigrants' Fourth Amendment rights. Part II evaluates the arguments for extending Fourth Amendment protections to undocumented immigrants. Viewing the Fourth Amendment as a restriction on government intrusion, Part III examines the constitutional remedies available to undocumented immigrants. This part rejects the Lopez restrictions on the applicability of the exclusionary rule and concludes that the Fourth Amendment neither draws distinctions among those who wish to claim its protection not among the proceedings in which such protection is desired.

Comments

This article was published as a student Note.

Recommended Citation

Victor C. Romero, Whatever Happened to the Fourth Amendment: Undocumented Immigrants' Rights after INS v. Lopenz-Mendoza and United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 65 S. Cal. L. Rev. 999 (1992).