When you read this stuff, keep it all in perspective. Remember:
The "Security Check" at the airport is for your safety, to make sure no terrorists get on, it is not an unreasonable search and siezure.
It may be hard to remember this when you are arrested for some form of contraband. Rock stars' dope comes to mind. Marijuana is clearly the weapon of choice for terrorist hijackers.
Remember "DUI" checkpoints are a special case to check for drunk drivers. They are not unreasonable search and siezure. It may be hard to remember this when you get arrested for not remembering your driver's license. You are a special case, too.
This is another case of a government trying to expand its span of control using the "Safety" cover.
"Those who would sacrifice lliberty for safety will soon have neither."
- Benjamin Franklin
I was about to flame, until I caught the sarcasm.
I'm not going to advocate the sacrificing of any liberties...BUT...I think it's clear we WON'T have safety if we chose to keep the liberties.
A case of "cake and eatin' it"
We've come to the point where we have to chose which is more valuable - and not go weak in the knees when the loss of safety costs us a loved one.
That said, a point of order: since the 4th does not specifically say a warrent "issued by a judge"...is that not a constitutional loophole whereby the Feds can argue that they have not violated the Constitution when the use "administrative warrents"?
I'm not defending the practice, but it seems to me the language is not airtight to call it unconstitutional.
Oh, and BTW, IMO much of this results directly from the fact that our courts have become so infested with touchy-feely liberals that the law man doesn't feel he can get a fair shot at the bad guys from the judges.
If our judges had their heads on straight, a lot fewer folks in the law-enforcement community would be behind these laws.