Following in the footsteps of the 2008 Second Circuit Decision In re Terrorist Bombings of U.S. Embassies in E. Afr., 552 F.3d 157 (2d Cir. 2008), the Seventh Circuit in United States v. Stokes, No. 11-2734 (7th Cir. Aug. 1, 2013) held that U.S. citizens are not protected by the warrant requirements of the fourth amendment overseas. The Thai warrant in this case did not describe the items to be seized with particularity and the search exceeded the scope of the warrant. Additionally, the Court relied on the Second Circuit holding that fourth amendment warrant requirements do not have extraterritorial reach. Therefore the Court held that
… the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement, and by extension the strictures of the Warrant Clause, do not apply to extraterritorial searches by U.S. agents. The search of Stoke’s home in Thailand is governed by the Amendment’s basic requirement of reasonable, … , to which we now turn.
The Court observed that the ICE agents relied in good faith on Thai legal authorities, law enforcement officers acted pursuant to a valid Thai search warrant, and the search was reasonable under all circumstances. Thus, the Court in Stokes held that the search of the defendant’s home was reasonable and therefore the district court didn’t err when it denied suppression of the evidence recovered as a result of this search.
Judge Sykes writes
The challenge to the search raises two questions: (1) whether an extraterritorial search of an American citizen by U.S. agents is subject to the Fourth Amendment’s implicit warrant requirement and the explicit requirements of the Warrant Clause; and (2) whether the search by ICE agents was reasonable. Following the Second Circuit, we hold that the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement and the Warrant Clause have no extraterritorial application. See In re Terrorist Bombings of U.S. Embassies in E. Afr., 552 F.3d 157, 171 (2d Cir. 2008). But Stokes remains protected by the Amendment’s touchstone requirement of reasonableness. See id. at 170 n.7. Because the search was reasonable, the photographic evidence was properly admitted at trial.
For additional commentary, see Lance J. Rogers, U.S. Citizens Living Abroad Aren’t Protected by Fourth Amendment’s Warrant Requirement, 93 CrL 638 (Aug. 14, 2013).