[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.

[Dead Corpse]

No. I read the post. Disagree with the reasoning. And must assume your are in some way too mentally deficient to understand that you are using the same kind of logic that Clinton used to try and redefine "is".

It's a search. It is covered. Privacy issues completely aside. Reasonable? Most people in our government these days wouldn't know "reasonable" if it was in mid-coition with them. I can only assume you suffer the same retardation.

What next? Quartering of soldiers only applies if you have three or fewer bedrooms? Taxation without representation only applies as long as there is a minimum of Two Representitives on the Hill?

You do know there is no "reasonable expectation of privacy" clause in the 4th Amendment don't you? Or is that another little thing you are willing to overlook? You either have probable cause and a warrent, or you do not search. Period. end of story.

[NJ_gent]

"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."

They are covered under the Fourth: "no unreasonable". I would argue that looking upon that which anyone else may look upon in the normal course of events is wholey reasonable. I would further argue that anything that falls outside that category is wholey unreasonable.