I’m not against them opening packages in truly exigent circumstances – but I want them to be required to notify the people whose privacy they violated, and to face penalties in court if they abused the privilege.

“It must be a situation where people are in imminent danger, evidence faces imminent destruction or a suspect will escape.”

Given that a package is unlikely to escape, or to be destroyed at the post office, that leaves “imminent danger” as the main driver. And I have no issues with that.

And of course, if the cops claim exigent circumstances and they AREN’T exigent, then they get slapped down in court (*knock on wood*). Same as any other warrantless search.

Once the need for a warrant goes away, they can open any or all packages at their discretion. It goes from a few abuses to a massive fishing expedition.

They always test the waters with the reasonable case and the unsympathetic defendant. Remember how they started “prohibited person” in the 60s with the felon in possession laws? And then expanded it in the 90s to include people who had been convicted of misdemeanor offenses?

This is how they chip away at the constitution. You take away a right from a disfavored few (terrorists here) and keep applying that new rule until people take it for granted. Then 20-30 years later you slowly start to expand it to the general population.

In that case, it’s quite reasonable.

Now, you think a warrant is required there?

If there’s enough intelligence to suggest the need for a search, there should be enough intelligence to get a warrant. That’s all the Constituion asks.

Baloney. The Fourth Amendment requires reasonableness for searches, and probable cause for warrants. They’re not the same thing. Personally, I think the feds should be able to look into any letter or package that has a 49% chance of causing death or serious injury, but that’s just me.