No, you should actually read Carroll, in context, rather than cherry picking and twisting dicta. Carroll definitively rejects the proposition that was asserted by another poster here, that the clause after the “,” that I pointed out refers to the first clause before the comma. This is patently incorrect, and Carroll definitely established that a search may proceed in certain circumstances without a warrant.
Your dicta is irrelevant to the context of air travel, which is indeed interstate commerce and subject directly to Federal Regulation under the Constitution. If you don’t like it, change the Constitution.
It is you who cannot f'in read, right where Carroll says that the particular f'in circumstance to which you so pointedly refer, whithout f'in mentioning what the f'in special circumstnaces were, requires still, inter alia (that's Litin), that the arresting officer have f'in probable cause, some f'in reason to believe that that moonshiner was transporting moonshine on that particular day, unlike the f'in moonshine you are trying to preach to everyone around here.
Next time you constitutional lawyer types try to tell us what a case said, try reading it and making sure it says what you said it says, because someone else will read it and prove that about the most useless crowd of folks around are lawyers who spend their time claiming they are constitutional law experts.
Are you such an f'in clueless Nazibootlicker that you cannot comprehend that there is no probable cause against blond 4 year old girls or grannies or old while males in wheelchairs.
Don't answer, you already proved it in spades.
What part of the ICC trumps the 4th ammendment Mr. JD Constitutional law scholar or your own case cite to Carroll stating that in a warrantless search an LEO procedes at his own peril until he can establish probable cause for the search, the burden being upon the LEO?