[spintreebob]

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized"

> Clearly the author thought that some invasions of privacy are unreasonable and some are reasonable.

I interpret the Warrants section to imply that even when a search is reasonable, a warrant is needed with specifics.

I suspect the courts interpret the Warrants section the opposite way: When a search is reasonable no warrant is necessary. And only when a search is unreasonable is a warrant necessary. But regardless of the interpretation, the crucial point is a definition of reasonable. If an male 6' 6' with dred locks and "black" features robs a bank it is not reasonable to put out an APB for a Black man. But it might be reasonable to put out an APB with the full description.

If a website is heavy with child porn, it might be reasoable to check out all visitors to that website. But it would not be reasonable to check all visitors to google or yahoo to find the child porn violator among that group that is overwhelmingly not into child porn.

Is there a way to define unreasonable that is not based on anecdotal examples?

[ilovesarah2012]

“Reasonable” is whatever a judge wants it to be.