Mike the Usurper wrote:

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.

There isn't really any ambiguity in there, and the places that have been fuzzy (Miranda, searching of vehicles on the way to impound etc.) have largely been ruled on by the courts. Where is there zero ambiguity? Houses and businesses. If there is to be a search, it is done with a warrant, period.

It acually is ambiguous. It says no warrants shall issue without probable cause, and it says no unreasonable searches, but it doesn't specifically say that every search requires a warrant. Thats what all of this stuff hinges on.

RE: USNews.com: The White House says spying on terrorism suspects without court approval is OK. What about physical searches?