3 ms·
You're absolutely correct here. The 4th Amendment (giving protection from unreasonable search and seizure) starts off, "the right of the people...", not "the ri
by CWuestefeld 15y ago
You're absolutely correct here. The 4th Amendment (giving protection from unreasonable search and seizure) starts off, "the right of the people...", not "the right of the citizens". Together with the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection clause, non-citizens get the same protections.
That said, the doctrine used in asset seizure cases (generally connected to the failed war on drugs) is that it's the seized property itself that is suspected to be guilty, and property doesn't have any of these rights. One can easily imagine them trying the same crap here.
- _delirium 15y agoYeah, on the latter point, I agree that the odds are stacked against any claim. But they'd be stacked against a claim by a U.S. citizen, too; apart from the added expense of litigation, I don't think a foreign company would be at an extra disadvantage in trying to get their domain name back, just the "normal" disadvantage that comes with trying to fight administrative property seizures.