Not true — even if the enema/colonoscopy guy [NM incident] had said "ok" (to a search) the multiple medical procedures were not reasonable and were actually dangerous.
The courts have defined other sets of circumstances under which a search is “reasonable,” despite there being neither permission nor a warrant.
The courts cannot be relied upon to define "reasonable" (just like they cannot be relied upon to define infringed
) &mdsah; his is why jury-trials are guaranteed by the constitution.
For instance, a customs officer’s powers of search are quite broad compared to officers at point distant from the border.
A customs officer has no legitimate authority outside of a port of entry, no?
OK, not all agreed searches are reasonable. But most are.
To me 4A has two purposes:
It prohibits unreasonable searches.
It prescribes rules for the issuing of warrants, under which one group of reasonable searches occurs.
But I think it cannot be stretched to mean any and all searches without warrant are unconstitutional. Searches with warrants are one sub-group of reasonable searches.