the fifth amendment protects individuals from unreasonable search and seizure.
the fifth amendment protects individuals from unreasonable search and seizure.
which amendment in the united states protects individuals from unreasonable search and seizure?
fifth amendment
the case concerned whether the restrictions placed on government officials by the fourth amendment applied to “factory sweeps” by the immigration and naturalization service (ins), in particular two factory sweeps conducted in january and september 1977. during these sweeps, ins agents surveyed the southern california davis pleating co. in search of illegal alien workers. the agents were acting in accordance with two warrants. neither of these warrants identified any particular individuals, but showed probable cause that there may be a number of aliens working on the premises. workers were systematically questioned to determine their citizenship status and asked to produce their immigration papers if their answers were not satisfactory. agents were stationed at the doors, though there is no record of whether this was meant to restrain the workers in question or merely to ensure that everyone was properly questioned. four of the employees questioned filed actions against the ins in 1978, arguing that the sweeps violated their fourth amendment right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure, and their right to equal protection under the fifth amendment. the fourth amendment states: "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." the case hinged not on whether the search was reasonable or there was probable cause for a seizure of the workforce, but whether a seizure took place at all, and therefore whether the protections of the fourth amendment applied.  the court held that the survey of the factory was instead an instance of “mere questing”; the court has adopted, as a rule, the theory that not every interaction between police or government officials and citizens qualifies as a search or seizure, and that officials can approach and speak with people so long as the interaction is clearly consensual. the decision therefore depended largely on whether the presence of ins agents at the doors of the factory, and the manner in general with which the workers were approached and questioned, were truly consensual or included acts of restraint or coercion.
immigration and naturalization service v. delgado
unreasonable search and seizure in new zealand









































the right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure is well recognised by the international human rights community. section 21 of the new zealand bill of rights act 1990 (nzbora 1990) incorporates this right into new zealand law, stating that: "everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure, whether of the person, property, or correspondence or otherwise."
unreasonable search and seizure in new zealand