[PhatHead]

I'd have to know a little more about the case before I can make a really solid judgment

Here's a little more about the case:

USA vs. Brown, Monte (PDF)

I would disagree with what you seem to be implying (that the legitimacy of a search is determined by whether evidence of a crime is actually found,) since by that standard, there is hardly a need to have a Fourth Amendment. But I may be reading too much into your comments.

This case, like most 4th Amendment cases, is not quite "cut and dried," and there may be room for disagreement, but I don't see anything particularly alarming about it (and I have become more of a 4th Amendment purist in recent years...)

[inquest]

Thanks, so it was a case of admissibility of evidence. My view isn't that "the legitimacy of a search is determined by whether evidence of a crime is actually found," but that the legitimacy of a conviction against someone isn't determined by whether the evidence against him was obtained legally, provided that the evidence itself is valid. The 4th amendment was designed to protect the innocent, not the guilty.