[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?

[MisterKnowItAll]

'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?'

Nope, those are searches too. Rather than address this all again, I'll refer you to post number 695, where bigLusr explains this all (again) at greater length. The key concept to watch for here is 'reasonable expectation of privacy': searches that don't violate it aren't covered by the Fourth Amendment even though they're searches.

'No. I had it from the start.'

You've had it wrong from the start. The Court's handling of 'plain English' in this case far exceeds your own ability to read it.