The 4th Amendment says... "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." https://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment4.html "The Constitution, through the Fourth Amendment, protects people from unreasonable searches and seizures by the government. The Fourth Amendment, however, is not a guarantee against all searches and seizures, but only those that are deemed unreasonable under the law." https://www.uscourts.gov/about-fede...ional-outreach/activity-resources/what-does-0 This seems to suggest that ALL searches and seizures are legal unless specifically prohibited by law. It's interesting to note that both Jefferson and Adams (opposite ends of the political spectrum at the time) both opposed the "Bill of Rights" (the first 10 Amendments). The reasoning was that the Constitution already spells out what the Federal government "can" do. Everything else is reserved for the States or the People. By spelling out specific things the Federal government "can't do", it brings the idea of limited government into question. There's nothing in the Constitution that I know of that permits the Federal government to search or seize anything. Yet, the 4th Amendment only protects against "unreasonable" search and seizure. Is it the 4th Amendment that authorizes defacto searches and seizures by the Federal government? How has our revenue collection agency become the lead law enforcement agency for cases that have nothing to do with revenue collection. Direct taxation is being used to make 4th Amendment violations "legal".