[JD86]

It is impossible to have a rational discussion on an issue if one of the parties keeps changing the definitions. My previous comments to you were about whether the law is per se "unconstitutional". You think so. You think because you think so, it makes it so. You also seem to believe (as do many others who have flamed me) that the right to privacy is absolute, that there is never any scenario under which it is reasonable for the government to ever ask you any question. That is your belief. That is the way you think the world should be. My error was in trying to explain the way the law is when obviously all you want to do is talk about the way the law should be. That is not my function as an attorney. When I am defending a client, I have to deal with reality. I hope if you ever need an attorney you can find one who can deal with reality too.

[savedbygrace]

I'm not changing definitions at all. The issue of constitutionality revolves around whether this a violation of the 4th. That means it revolves around whether these searches are reasonable.

You, ma'am, are trying to avoid answering that question and instead are changing the subject.