I hate this phrase, "unreasonable search and seizure."
The way most people and many judges and police "interpret" the 4th amendment and I think incorrectly, is that police can search your car, your home, your person, without a warrant, as long as it is not "unreasonable."
That being the case, the 4th amendment is meaningless. Defining what is "unreasonable" is almost a case by case endeavor, time consuming and expensive to pursue.
If the 4th amendment was read correctly, it is obvious that a warrant is always needed when there is going to be people and items "searched...and...seized."
It is my contention that the first part of 4th amendment states the philosophy behind why a "warrant" is always needed for a search and seizure.
The proceudre required to obtain a "warrant" is designed to help protect the citizens against "unreasonable" search and seizures, which without such a procedure, the citizen is always subject to the officers mood and agenda, as illustrated in this article about the party in Maryland.
i agree with you. that might explain why the idiot author thinks sobriety checkpoints are "ok" . notice he didn't say "constitutional". he probably thinks the use of drug sniffing dogs are ok too... all for the good of "public safety" of course (rolling eyes here).