LOL U MAD BRO?
As I already pointed out to you, Carroll specifically rejected the idea that one has to have a warrant for every search. I cited to Carroll solely to point out that the idea that a warrant is required for every single search is misplaced. Instead, there are numerous exceptions to the warrant requirement. The Carroll exception is known as the automobile exception. Under Carroll, if an officer has probable cause, then they can conduct a search of an automobile without a warrant. However, what you fail to comprehend, is that there are OTHER exceptions to the warrant requirement. These include the two categories that I mentioned, Consent and Administrative Searches. There are also exceptions for various exigent circumstances, the border search exception, and others that I haven’t mentioned yet.
I only cited Carroll to debunk one erroneous allegation made by a poster, that being that a warrant is required for every search. You made the amateur mistake of pulling inapplicable dicta from Carroll and tried to twist it to fit something it does not.
If you want to look into cases dealing with administrative searches, then you need to look here:
United States v. Aukai, 497 F.3d 955 (9th Cir. 2007) (en banc), United States v. Davis, 482 F.2d 893, 908 (9th Cir. 1973); United States v. Hartwell, 436 F.3d 174, 178 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 127 S. Ct. 111 (2006); United States v. Marquez, 410 F.3d 612 (2005); United States v. Biswell, 406 U.S. 311 (1972).
As for the specific provision of the United States Code, you need to look here:
49 U.S.C. § 44901.
LOL U MAD?
The argument is not about warrants, in every case, but about probable cause, in every case, which Carroll says you have to have.
49 USC 44901 Screening passengers and property reads:
(a) In General.— The Under Secretary of Transportation for Security shall provide for the screening of all passengers and property, including United States mail, cargo, carry-on and checked baggage, and other articles, that will be carried aboard a passenger aircraft operated by an air carrier or foreign air carrier in air transportation or intrastate air transportation.
Having conferred no additional powers except the rather vague and undefined "screeining of all passengers" as you well know from the rules of statutory interpretation, all other laws regarding searches and seizures remain in place. This does not override probable cause or "reasonability" of the screening to be implemented.
What kind of a so-called JD are you anyway?
We have little difficulty in concluding that, where, as here, regulatory inspections further urgent federal interest, and the possibilities of abuse and the threat to privacy are not of impressive dimensions, the inspection may proceed without a warrant where specifically authorized by statute
In the particular case of fingering women and girls and groping men, the "abuse and threat to privacy" is of impressive dimensions, of a degree that offends many if not most sensible citizens.
And yes I am mad, I am determined to exposed patent silly frauds like you who try to stand on their credentials and sling around BS rather than stand on the force of well-reasoned argument like most well-credentialed professionals do.