... Courts have issued varying opinions...
Who cares. People with an agenda spout the most outrageously false things imaginable. This proves nothing. When I say it is unconstitutional
on its face, what I am specifically pointing out is that judicial review on these specific points is
completely irrelevant except as a matter of procedure. The unconstitutionality and inherent contradiction of "reasonable warrantless search" is obvious on its face. It makes as much sense as a square-circle, a dry-ocean or an honest fiat money.
Nothing you said is true. Courts have always allowed some searches without warrants.
The other reasons under which searches can occur are (a) consent of the individual to be searched (or owner of the house, if a house), (b) the issuance of a warrant for arrest (since the individual will be searched upon being arrested), and (d) "exigent circumstances", meaning, the police believed a crime was ongoing or about to occur, or destruction of evidence of a crime, and so on. Even these carve-outs are playing with fire when it comes to the 4th Amendment and I can see no reason why any of them must be permitted to exist, particularly in the post-911 world. Since the tyrants are "playing to the edges of the box" they are given to play in, as Hayden put it, behaving like leashed dogs, then they must be treated like dogs and be leashed and punished accordingly. Since they insist on abusing the leash, then let them be chained to the stake. Let's impose the fullest possible meaning of the 4th Amendment. Let
We The People "play to the edges of the box" for once, where the "box" in this case is the Constitution, you know,
the supreme law of the land. Or maybe the Federales would like to deny that that is what the Constitution is. Which is fine by me. Their funeral.
