The first clause protects against “unreasonable” searches.
Any search for which permission has been granted is by definition reasonable, as is any search for which there is a valid warrant. The courts have defined other sets of circumstances under which a search is “reasonable,” despite there being neither permission nor a warrant. For instance, a customs officer’s powers of search are quite broad compared to officers at point distant from the border.
A warrant obtained under false pretenses, as for instance by means of perjured testimony, might be overturned, which then normally invalidates any evidence found during the search.
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?