[JD86]

It's a search in the same way that it would be a search if the feds came personally into the place of business, searched through all the records, and wrote down everything they wanted to know. The only difference is, the feds are requiring the citizens to do the dirty work.

It is not the same...and the giving of information is avoidable. The consumer is on notice of the $10,000 cash transaction disclosure. All they have to do is not pay cash. No disclosure of information. Your scenario presumes unfettered access to all information by the government with no way to avoid it. Does not apply here.

Suppose a law was passed requiring you to make videotapes of yourself at home--enough videos per week so that the feds could watch what you are doing 24 hours a day. Would you call that a search? Or is it only a search if they come and search in person?

This is a specious and inflammatory argument. There is nothing in this law about going into anyone's home for any reason. Does not apply to the discussion at hand.

[Sandy]

It's an analogy. In both cases, a person is being required to send information to the feds--either videotapes or business records. Is it only a search if the feds come and do the searching in person? Is it only a search if it's at your home? Suppose the videos are of you in your place of business? Is that not a search? Come to think of it, wouldn't it be better to just put hidden cameras into all places of business? You know, we could just let the feds watch all the transactions themselves and save ourselves the time and paperwork. Not a search, right?