"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." Mr. Choate, where does it say you have the right to private communications? It doesn't. Compare: "Citizens are guaranteed inviolability of the person. No one may be arrested except by a court decision or on the warrant of a procurator. Citizens are guaranteed inviolability of the home. None may, without lawful grounds, enter a home against the will of those residing in it. The privacy of citizens and of their correspondence, telephone conversations and telegraphic communications is protected by law." [1] "Again, this isn't lawyerpunks." - Sunder. Questions of constitutional interpretations are central to constitutional privacy analysis, which was what I was trying to get at, albeit unsuccessfully. The question Mr. May posed was more interesting, and of direct relevance. -Aimee "It does no good to debate with Choate, however." - Tim May [1] UGA School of Law SIBLEY LECTURE 1989 U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia http://www.lawsch.uga.edu/speeches/scalia.html