Speech #980214050

Chairman. I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by the distinguished gentleman from New York to strike section 114 of this bill. While I can appreciate the gentlemans zeal to stem the tide of illegal immigration. there are better ways to do that than to deny farm workers the same protection against search and seizure that factory workers enjoy at their place of employment. Mr. Chairman. a dichotomy exists in current law. On the one hand. the fourth amendment to the Constitution states that people have a right "to be secure in their persons. houses. papers and effects" which. in the case of an employer. has been interpreted to mean his place of business. Yet. on the other hand the courtsand most recently the Supreme Courthave said that law enforcement agents do not have to get a search warrant to enter the "open field" of an agricultural employer. even though that field is. in a very real sense. his place of business. Those arguing the Courts position make the claim that extending search warrant requirements to "open fields" would not only make law enforcement activitiesincluding the apprehension of illegal aliensmore difficult but would establish a precedent for other outdoor areas. However. there is little evidence to suggest that a "search warrant" requirement would inhibit law enforcement activities. warrants could be obtained quickly and easily over the phone if probable cause to issue the warrant can be shown. Furthermore. trying to compare an individuals lawn with an "open field" is stretching things a bit. a better comparison would be between an "open field" which is producing crops and an industrial facility which is producing consumer goods.