Replies

The law does say something different and that's the point. You have a misunderstanding of the meaning of unreasonable and reasonable. For you reasonable means you have a warrant and it's unreasonable if there isn't a warrant. That's not the law or the meaning of the constitution. That's why the details of what the administration did or didn't do matter. That's why we're a nation of laws.

If you go to fly commercially at the airport you submit to a warrantless search by a government law enforcement officer. That's a reasonable search. If you change your mind and leave without being searched in order to search you the conditions have changed and with some exceptions searching you without a warrant is probably unreasonable. I say probably because what ever actions you took in protesting the initial search may have given officers probable cause or you may have broken a law which in arresting you they are allowed to again search you without a warrant (including body cavity searches if appropriate and they are very intrusive). The airport is a very clear example of a warantless search that is considered reasonable and not a violation of the 4th amendment. If you don't think so head down to your local commercial airport and go through the check point and refuse to be searched. Then when they are done with you can sue them and the judge will explain to you the difference between reasonable and unreasonable searches and when warrants are required and when they aren't. The fine and the legal costs will cement the lesson.

You don't read well, do you? Did you learn that in your law classes?

I stated plainly that there was case law (and I should have also said court decisions) that said that government could do such searches.

I'm saying that an honest reading of the 4th Amendment says no such thing.

There SHALL not be unreasonable searches. Reasonable ones require a warrant. It's there. Read it for yourself. Take off your law school hat and put on your English speaking, common sense hat.