[ez]

"The Fourth Amendment governs not only the seizure of tangible items but extends as well to the recording of oral statements."

From Katz v U.S.

I have to study this further. I know police don't need a warrant when they find a crime in progress, because it is "reasonable" to stop the crime instead of running to the judge. By the same token, it seems that a warrant may not be needed for a "reasonable" search of Al Queda operatives if they are caught in the act of communicating enemy "signals."

[Pragmatic_View]

Please see posts 298 & 300 re the President's authority to conduct warrantless searches.

[ndt]

"By the same token, it seems that a warrant may not be needed for a "reasonable" search of Al Queda operatives if they are caught in the act of communicating enemy "signals.""

I'm sure you can find somebody that will argue that it is not reasonable, but I'm not. In cases where communications from abroad are tapped and incoming or outgoing calls to the U.S. and even to U.S. Persons are intercepted, to me that seems reasonable.

I have difficulty imagining a court denying a retroactive warrant in such a case. So why bypass such a system?