[DaveyB]

...the operative clause is "no Warrants shall issue", which means a warrant isn't needed.

I hope you are being sarcastic or that English is not your first language, but of course with public schools what they are ...?

...no Warrants shall issue , but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.Means that...

A warrant is required and can only be issued if and only if the all of the following conditions are met
1. There is probable cause
2. that is supported by Oath or affirmation
3. describing the place to be searched
4. the persons or things to be seized.

In other words who's laptop, which one if they own several, and where it is to be seized.

The founders envisioned a day of tyranny when the scope of government would not be constrained, where rights give way to power, and where taxes exceeded 10 percent.

The founders would be ashamed of what has been to their plan of liberty.

[Jack Hammer]

“The founders would be ashamed of what has been to their plan of liberty.”

Amen to that, Brother. Shout it from the rooftops!

[Technogeeb]

I hope you are being sarcastic

It's usually a good idea to read the fine print.

A warrant is required

< sarcasm > Says you. That "but upon probable cause" is after a comma. They could've meant that you must have probable cause before an Oath is needed to support the warrant. With all those commas in there, it just isn't possible to understand what they could've meant, so clearly the amendment is just an anachronism from an earlier time. Besides, they were probably talking about making sure government papers were secure, and we have the Army and National Guard to protect government papers these days. < /sarcasm>

Is that better?

[muawiyah]

Really?

Sounds like you don't know what international borders mean. First of all the place on the otherside of the border is NOT the United States. it's a foreign country choc full of funny little foreign people.

If you go there, there's a price for getting back in. First, you have to prove your identity with documents preapproved for that purpose. Second, you have to declare your property, AND, best of all, make it available for a search, or seizure, or whatever.

If you didn't want that to happen, which has been the case since the first national boundary was ever erected (6,000 or so years back), then you shouldn't have left the country, or you should not have taken that piece of property outside the country.

Frankly, I'm on the side of even more vigorous searches, including those of illegal aliens trying to slip in and steal identities and jobs.