In the case of Hurtado et al. v. United States (1972), the U.S Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether or not a warrantless search and seizure conducted by American law enforcement on foreign soil violated the Fourth Amendment rights of non-resident aliens. The defendants, Mexican nationals residing in Mexico, were convicted for smuggling marijuana into the United States based on evidence obtained through this search and seizure operation. They appealed their conviction arguing that it was unconstitutional as they had been subjected to an unreasonable search and seizure under the Fourth Amendment. The Supreme Court ruled against Hurtado et al., stating that non-U.S citizens who have no voluntary connection to the U.S cannot claim protection under its Constitution regarding searches and seizures carried out abroad by American agents. Therefore, even though such actions might be considered illegal if performed within U.S borders without a warrant, they are permissible when executed outside of them against individuals who do not have substantial connections with America.

In the dissenting opinion for Hurtado et al. v. United States, it was argued that the majority's decision to allow evidence obtained by warrantless searches at border crossings violated Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable search and seizure. The dissenting justices believed that such a broad exception to the requirement of obtaining a warrant before conducting a search could lead to abuses of power by law enforcement officials. They contended that while there may be unique circumstances at international borders which necessitate certain exceptions, these should not completely eliminate constitutional safeguards designed to protect individual rights and liberties from government intrusion without due process of law.