Constitutional Rights for Non-Citzens.

[buzzy]

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Is anyone excluded from this? Or does it apply to anyone residing within the United States including tourists, non-residents etc etc.
Thanks,
buzzy

 

[SA]

...and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Therein lie the exclusions. Then again, ask all those who lost their possessions to various government org.s (including the IRS) how secure they were/felt. Your hard drive contents, cell phone records and wallet innards are off limits to the 'authorities' according to the constitution. Reality, however, proves the fourth amendment of the constitution to be nothing more than empty words ... unless you can afford a kick ass lawyer.
Therefore, the sixth amendment ...

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor; and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.
... has the most value out of the ten in today's world.

 

[SA]

Sorry, that may not have answered your original question. This may though ...

As a categorical statement, the claim that there are "sharp distinctions between the rights of citizens and non-citizens" is legally and historically false. The Supreme Court has held since the late 19th century that the Constitution protects all "persons," not just citizens. "These provisions [Fourteen Amendment equal protection]... are universal in their application, to all persons within the territorial jurisdiction, without regard to any differences of race, of color, or of nationality..." Yick Wo v. Hopkins 118 US 356 (1886).
- Chicago Tribune, December 2001
[ 01 January 2003: Message edited by: SillyAlien ]

 

[Dr. J]

The application of the basic consitutional rights as we know them are not, in fact, universal. While they may be when it comes to suspect classes such as race, nationality, etc., there are limits on these rights.
For instance, convicted felons cannot own guns or vote, both of which are constitutionally protected. Moreover, people on probation or parole are not entitled to the same 4th amendment protections as "regular" citizens.
And, while some think the 6th amendment is the most important, I think the 1st and 14th amendments have, by far, more important implications today.

 

[Mahan Atma]

Originally posted by Dr. J:
And, while some think the 6th amendment is the most important, I think the 1st and 14th amendments have, by far, more important implications today.
There's no doubt but that the 14th is the most important amendment of all, by far. For one thing, the entire Bill of Rights (including the 1st and the 6th) wouldn't even be applicable against the states if it weren't for the 14th. This is crucial, because the states initiate the vast majority of criminal prosecutions.
Its Due Process and Equal Protection clauses are the source of most of your constitutional rights.
Moreover, Congress hinges a heck of a lot of crucial legislation (e.g. civil rights bills) on Section 5.
It's one of the silver linings of the Civil War.

 

[DrGonzoESQ]

Yep, the good old 14th, brought us the bill of rights. If we could only get them to repeal the 19th. ( JUst kiddding ladies ). I had an old boss that had never heard of the 13th amendment, course most of us have. (no I'm not gonna explain these jokes, go read the constitution....everyone should)
To answer the actual question though, yes Non-Citizens are afforded basic constitutional rights when accused of a crime.
[ 02 January 2003: Message edited by: DrGonzoESQ ]

 

[Infinite Jest]

US Constitution here
To add to the original question - has the situation changed noticeably since S11? Any rights been lost?

 

[DrGonzoESQ]

The rights haven't been LOST since 9/11, so much as moidified, there is a kind of uncertainity in the law right now. The way the emergency and anti terroist legislation is written, it preserves the rights inherent in the constitution, it just lowers the threshold for their application.
IMHO, it's going to get worse before it gets better, there's going to be TONS of case law coming out in the next couple years, much of it likely contradictory at first while the courts sort out the mess. Unfortunately, we've got a court stacked with Regan/Bush nominees right now...so it may make for some rough times ahead.

 

[buzzy]

Good answers thanks!

 

[Dr. J]

The 4th Circuit just released a ruling that denies traditional constitutional rights to US citizens captured abroad, engaged in actions against the government.
Courts, the judges ruled, must be "highly deferential" to the government during wartime, even an unconventional war such as that against global terrorism.
The ruling does not clarify whether the government can hold US citizens captured on US soil.