N.D.Iowa: Corporation had only limited Fourth Amendment rights against an immigration sweep

Corporation raided to seize undocumented workers does not have full Fourth Amendment rights because it is not a “person,” and it lacks standing to challenge the seizure of the individuals. The corporation only has the power to attack general warrants. United States v. Agriprocessors, Inc., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 65165 (N.D. Iowa July 28, 2009):

Agriprocessors does not explain why the court should count Agriprocessors among “the people”; in other words, Agriprocessors does not offer the court a good reason to construe the Fourth Amendment to afford Agriprocessors full-blown Fourth Amendment rights. It is contrary to the precedent of the United States Supreme Court, which has made clear over the past 100 years that corporations do not enjoy the same right against unreasonable searches and seizures under the Fourth Amendment as natural persons enjoy. See, e.g., G.M. Leasing Corp. v. United States, 429 U.S. 338, 97 S. Ct. 619, 629, 50 L. Ed. 2d 530 (1977) (emphasizing that, while corporations certainly have “some Fourth Amendment rights,” “[t]he Court … has recognized that a business, by its special nature and voluntary existence, may open itself to intrusions that would not be permissible in a purely private context.”); United States v. Morton Salt Co., 338 U.S. 632, 652, 70 S. Ct. 357, 94 L. Ed. 401, 46 F.T.C. 1436 (1950) (“[C]orporations can claim no equality with individuals in the enjoyment of a right to privacy.”). A court might fairly read the Supreme Court’s relevant precedent as endowing corporate entities with only a right to attack general warrants, which the Framers abhorred, or with a basic due process right against clearly abusive government searches and seizures. See First Nat’l Bank v. Bellotti, 435 U.S. 765, 778 n.14, 98 S. Ct. 1407, 55 L. Ed. 2d 707; see, e.g., Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United States, 251 U.S. 385, 391-92, 40 S. Ct. 182, 64 L. Ed. 319, T.D. 2984, 17 Ohio L. Rep. 514 (1920); Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43, 75-76, 26 S. Ct. 370, 50 L. Ed. 652 (1906).

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.