This is a timely question that begs for the population to restate that the Fourth Amendment makes no distinction or acknowledges classes of citizens whose rights are manipulated at the will of the government.
As the term "unreasonable" is used in the Fourth Amendment (implies logical or reason as a test) your question should come up with a goose egg...there is no inviolability of a citizen's right with regard to search and seizure, because the US Supreme Court has created exceptions in the interest of law enforcement. This does not mean you have no protection under the Fourth Amendment, only that the protection is not absolute and police may conduct a lawful search and seizure if the situation meets certain reasonableness criteria.
Added Note:
[The original author objects to the decision in Samson v. California, 547 US 843 (2006), which held a California law allowing police to conduct "suspicionless" searches of parolees as a condition of release was constitutional.]
In the first paragraphs of the Syllabus, the Court summarizes:
"Pursuant to a California statute -- which requires every prisoner eligible for release on state parole to "agree in writing to be subject to search or seizure by a parole officer or other peace officer … , with or without a search warrant and with or without cause" -- and based solely on petitioner's parolee status, an officer searched petitioner and found methamphetamine. The trial court denied his motions to suppress that evidence, and he was convicted of possession. Affirming, the State Court of Appeal held that suspicionless searches of parolees are lawful under California law and that the search in this case was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment because it was not arbitrary, capricious, or harassing.
"Held: The Fourth Amendment does not prohibit a police officer from conducting a suspicionless search of a parolee."
This decision does not extend to members of the general public, nor to ex-convicts whose parole has been satisfied.
The US Supreme Court has, in fact, made decisions supporting Fourth Amendment rights as far back as Weeks v. US, (1914) in which the Court created the "exclusionary rule" that prohibits illegally obtained evidence from being used to convict a defendant at trial. This rule was extended to the states in Mapp v. Ohio, (1961)
The original author is correct, however, that more conservative Courts under Chief Justices Burger, Rehnquist and Roberts have allowed more exceptions to the exclusionary rule, somewhat eroding Fourth Amendment protection -- but not yet to the extent claimed on the Discussion Page.]
For more information, see Related Questions, below.
