Previously deported alien has no Fourth Amendment rights. United States v. Gutierrez-Casada, 553 F. Supp. 2d 1259 (D. Kan. 2008):<\/p>\n
Just as an escaped prisoner is wrongfully present anywhere but in the penitentiary, the deported felonious alien is wrongfully present anywhere in the United States. Just as an escaped prisoner enjoys no greater Fourth Amendment rights when outside the prison walls than he does when within them, a deported felonious alien obtains no greater Fourth Amendment rights by reentering the United States than he would have had if he had remained outside the United States. Had this defendant remained outside the United States, he would have had no Fourth Amendment rights because that Amendment has no extraterritorial application. See Ross v. McIntyre<\/em>, 140 U.S. 453, 464 (1891) (finding “the constitution can have no operation in another country.”); Verdugo-Urquidez<\/em>, 494 U.S. at 274-75, 110 S.Ct. 1056 (holding the Fourth Amendment does not protect nonresident aliens against unreasonable searches or seizures conducted outside the sovereign territory of the United States); Zadvydas v. Davis<\/em>, 533 U.S. 678, 693, 121 S.Ct. 2491, 150 L.Ed.2d 653 (2001) (finding it “well established that certain constitutional protections available to persons inside the United States are unavailable to aliens outside of our geographic borders.”) See generally, Atamirzayeva v. U.S.<\/em>, ___ F.3d ___, 2008 WL 1959519 (Fed. Cir.2008) (reviewing cases finding that the Constitution is subject to territorial limitations).<\/p>\n
Defendant’s Fourth Amendment position at the time of the search is also comparable to that of a trespasser who has entered on another’s land without the landowner’s consent. “Trespassers have not been granted Fourth Amendment rights because they do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the property.” State v. Cruz<\/em>, 15 Kan. App. 2d 476, 481, 809 P.2d 1233, 1237 (Kan. App. 1991).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The officer could conclude that the consent to search bags in the back of a pickup truck was limited to only the driver’s bags, but the defendant did not show standing in the other bags. In any event, there was probable cause for search of the whole vehicle after the driver and passenger were found in possession on their persons. United States v. Grey, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 39316 (E.D. Ark. May 14, 2008).*<\/p>\n
ICE officers had exigent circumstances for an entry for undocumented aliens because of the likelihood that they would have moved before the officers got back with a warrant. United States v. Flore-Castaneda, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 39226 (S.D. Tex. May 14, 2008).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading