Well my pompous foaming at the mouth BRO, it was your case cite and now you are trying to argue, since it does not uphold YOUR position, that it is irrelevant to your position. You decide.
Second, we are not talking about searching airports. The government can have at it all they like. We are talking about searching human beings.
Third, you state "Please see: (Terry v. Ohio) (protective frisk with reasonable suspicion"
But that is exactly my point and the point raised in Carroll. It has to do with "reasonable suspicion, probable cause, etc. etc." Since when is their reasonable suspicion to finger the private parts of a blond 4 year old girl? When, my learned pompous attorney friend?
And you go on with your list of exceptions "exigent circumstances, hot pursuit, searches incident to lawful arrest, seizures in plain view, inventory searches, border searches and roadblocks"
Now, since when is Topeka to Fresno a boarder search. What is in plain sight when it is not under granny's smock, but we go looking anyway. I don't think "hot pursuit" and pursuit of a hot female are legally the same thing, but you are the legal ass around here, not me.
No, ignorant hack, as I already told you, I cited it to debunk the proposition that a WARRANT was ALWAYS required in EVERY circumstance. You were the one that than began twisting it. NEXT.
Second, we are not talking about searching airports. The government can have at it all they like. We are talking about searching human beings.
United States v. Aukai, 497 F.3d 955 (2007).
Third, you state "Please see: (Terry v. Ohio) (protective frisk with reasonable suspicion")
Uh huh, I was just pointing out ANOTHER exception. Since you seem to think that ALL searches EVERYWHERE, require probable cause. I didn't say that this was the exception that was applicable to airport searches. You are apparently too stupid to see the distinction
But that is exactly my point and the point raised in Carroll. It has to do with "reasonable suspicion, probable cause, etc. etc." Since when is their reasonable suspicion to finger the private parts of a blond 4 year old girl? When, my learned pompous attorney friend?
Once again, hack, United States v. Aukai, 497 F.3d 955 (2007).
And you go on with your list of exceptions "exigent circumstances, hot pursuit, searches incident to lawful arrest, seizures in plain view, inventory searches, border searches and roadblocks" Now, since when is Topeka to Fresno a boarder search. What is in plain sight when it is not under granny's smock, but we go looking anyway. I don't think "hot pursuit" and pursuit of a hot female are legally the same thing, but you are the legal ass around here, not me.
You really are stupid aren't you? Your assertion was that every single search at all times requires probable cause. The other poster above claimed that every search at all times requires both a warrant AND probable cause. I listed these exceptions to the warrant requirement to show that contention was erroneous.
Once again, if you want to deal with a case directly related to airport searches, please see: United States v. Aukai, 497 F.3d 955 (2007). I noticed that you deliberately ignored it.