Op-Ed | Abducting a despot: When U.S. justice leaves the Fourth Amendment behind amNewYork

"We may shed no tears for former Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro, charged with collaborating with drug cartels to traffic cocaine, but should he be denied protection from unreasonable searches and seizures conferred by the Fourth Amendment? This is the position that the government will undoubtedly (and with solid legal precedent) take. It may do so, strangely enough, simply because Maduro was abducted by U.S. law enforcement on his own soil."

"Earlier this year, in G.F.F. v. Trump, Hellerstein enjoined the U.S. government from summarily removing more than 200 aliens to El Salvador's terrorism confinement center. His ruling rested on the plain wording of the Alien Enemies Act, which required meaningful notice, adequate time to marshal a legal defense, a hearing, and judicial review all before physically removing foreigners from the U.S."

"With Maduro, however, Hellerstein faces a seemingly impossible balancing act and that is whether he must afford full constitutional protections to those who cross the border unlawfully (as in G.F.F.), and simultaneously deny basic civil liberties to a foreign national forcibly brought before it by the United States, like Maduro? Maduro argues that he was kidnapped by U.S. agents and while he certainly has the right to counsel and a fair trial, he will likely be deprived of Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches."

Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro was captured and brought to U.S. custody to face federal charges including narco-terrorism, conspiracy, drug trafficking, and money laundering. The U.S. government will argue that Maduro was lawfully deprived of Fourth Amendment protections because he was abducted on Venezuelan soil by U.S. agents. U.S. District Judge Alvin Hellerstein must reconcile prior precedent in G.F.F. v. Trump and the Alien Enemies Act, which required notice, time to prepare a defense, a hearing, and judicial review before removal. The central question is whether full constitutional protections apply to a foreign national forcibly brought to the United States.

Read at www.amny.com