Bailey v. Biter

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that searches of U.S. citizens conducted abroad by U.S. agents are not governed by the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement and need only be reasonable
• holding that foreign citizens are protected against unlawful searches and seizures by United States government in foreign countries
• holding that “the Fourth Amendment’s Warrant Clause has no extraterritorial application”
• observing that its previous holding articulated in United States v. Toscanino , 500 F.2d 267 (2d Cir. 1974), \that aliens may invoke the Fourth Amendment against searches conducted abroad by the U.S. government\ was \no longer valid in light of Verdugo-Urquidez \
• applying traditional principles to hold that the Fourth Amendment’s Warrant Clause has no extraterritorial application and that foreign searches of U.S. citizens con- ducted by U.S. agents are subject only to the Fourth Amend- ment’s requirement of reasonableness
• “[W]e hold that the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement does not govern searches conducted abroad by U.S. agents; such searches of U.S. citizens need only satisfy the Fourth Amendment’s requirement of reasonableness.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).