OFAC raises interesting arguments about issues that we need not, and do not, decide. We address only the facts of this case: OFAC's seizure of assets as a result of its designation order of a United States entity located within the United States. We do not address the requirements under the Fourth Amendment for other situations including, for example, designations of foreign entities or designations by executive order. We also make clear that our holding concerns OFAC's original designation order only; we do not address whether a warrant is required for subsequent orders. Finally, we note that a designation order need not specify all details of every asset to meet the Fourth Amendment's particularity requirement. Cf. United States v. Petti, 973 F.2d 1441, 1444-45 (9th Cir.1992) (<HOLDING>). 19 . We also note that MCASO is no stranger
holding that the doorway of the home is a public place for purposes of the warrant requirement of the fourth amendment holding that a  roving wiretap surveillance warrant meets the fourth amendments particularity requirement holding that the government cannot rely upon affidavits not attached to the warrant itself to satisfy the particularity requirement holding plaintiffs fraud claim failed rule 9b particularity requirement which in turn meant deceptive trade practices claim failed the particularity requirement holding that the decision whether an alien meets the hardship requirement in 8 usc  1229b is  a discretionary judgment