[MisterKnowItAll]

Me: 'Their ruling specifically holds that the type of search at issue in this case is not subject to the Fourth Amendment and therefore does not require a warrant.' (and) 'As I've repeatedly pointed out, the SCOTUS does _not_ claim . . .'

You: 'Make up your mind.'

My mind has been made up on this point since I first read the decision. The SCOTUS doesn't say a dog sniff isn't a search. It says that the dog sniff in this case IS a search, but not one to which the Fourth Amendment applies.

Got it now? Or should I use even smaller words?

[TigersEye]

...the dog sniff in this case IS a search, but not one to which the Fourth Amendment applies.

Selective application of the Constitution? That explains all those laws that infringe on the RKBA.

[Dead Corpse]

So all searches are in fact searches, except when they say the Constitution doesn't apply because they happen to like those kind of searches? And this doesn't strike you as a particularly looney assertion?

No. I had it from the start. I was more interested in why you are defending their crappy parsing of plain English. Are you a fan of penumbra's and emanations as well?