N.D.Cal.: Plaintiff who was searched and detained wrongfully for erroneously being on no-fly list and did not seek damages waived her claim by voluntarily leaving country

Plaintiff alien who complained of being searched and detained unnecessarily because she was on a no-fly list and could not get off of it who voluntarily left the country abandoned her Fourth Amendment claims by leaving and not seeking damages for her detention–-just future injunctive relief. Ibrahim v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 64619 (N.D. Cal. July 27, 2009):

Although plaintiff has standing to reach the merits, her argument on the merits is compromised by the fact that she is an alien who voluntarily left the United States and thus voluntarily left her constitutional rights at the water’s edge. She asserts that placing her name on the no-fly list violates her right to freely exercise her religion, her right to freely associate with other Muslims and Malaysians, her right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures, her right to equal protection, and her right to procedural due process. The Constitution, however, does not apply extraterritorially to protect non-resident aliens outside our country.

Aliens within the United States are entitled to the protection of certain constitutional rights. “[I]n extending constitutional protections beyond the citizenry, the [Supreme] Court has been at pains to point out that it was the alien’s presence within its territorial jurisdiction that gave the judiciary power to act.” Johnson v. Eisentrager, 339 U.S. 763, 771, 70 S. Ct. 936, 94 L. Ed. 1255 (1950) (holding that the right to a writ of habeas corpus did not extend to enemy aliens captured and imprisoned abroad). Aliens, like Ibrahim, who are not within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States are not entitled to such protection. See United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U.S. 259, 269, 110 S. Ct. 1056, 108 L. Ed. 2d 222 (1990) (holding that the Fourth Amendment did not apply to the search and seizure by United States agents of property owned by a Mexican citizen and located in his Mexican residence).

Defendant had no standing to challenge search of a vehicle he abandoned. United States v. Acuna, 339 Fed. Appx. 723 (9th Cir. 2009) (unpublished).*

Defense counsel was not ineffective for not challenging seizure of evidence lawfully obtained by a search incident. Sumner v. Davis, 340 Fed. Appx. 937 (4th Cir. 2009) (unpublished).*

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.