> How did you reach that conclusion? I would have thought that if the Founders intended to limit the 4th to "just customs searches" they would have said so? Th

> How did you reach that conclusion? I would have thought that if the Founders intended to limit the 4th to "just customs searches" they would have said so? The Bill of Rights were born of the same environment that gave a specific protection regarding the right to bear arms and regarding the quartering of soldiers in private homes. They were in many ways a reaction to British actions prior to the American Revolutionary War and not a simple enumeration of rights. Indeed, the Federalists felt the Bill of Rights was self-evident and did not need to be duplicated in that fashion, and they added in a separate Amendment making clear that the fact that these rights were enumerated should not be construed to mean that the list of rights was exhaustive. Getting back to your question then, the Fourth Amendment was a reaction to British "writs of assistance" that allowed customs inspectors wide-ranging powers of search and seizure to stop New England merchants from smuggling goods. Indeed, if the writers of the Fourth Amendment had meant to completely foreclose the possibility of government warrantless searches then they would not have inserted the weasel word "reasonable" into its text. So the good news is that reasonable can change over time to become more restrictive on government's ability to search. The bad news is that until this change actually happens in the courts then it's hard to say specifically that the government is "oppressing the people" just because their lawyers don't agree with your interpretation of the Fourth Amendment.