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.
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?