The 4th amendment reads:
“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.”
I’m not a constitutional scholar, but – seriously – if cops want to look down someone’s underpants, what about “secure in their persons” and “no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause..” does not apply here?
Let me guess: “he’s just lucky they didn’t shoot him.” But that’s not anywhere in the constitution that I’ve seen. Maybe it’s in one of those parts that the govermnent tore out and wiped its ass with.
People who argue social contractarian positions might argue that putting up with a bit of this kind of thing is the price you pay for existing in a modern civilization. A utilitarian might argue that it’s necessary in some moral calculus, that we treat a class of people as potentially hostile, and treat them more circumspectly.* I withhold judgement on those views, but I’d observe that if the premise is that certain classes of people are subject to more surveillance because of their potential threat, then we should have “stop and frisk” of corporate executives, congresspeople/representatives, everyone who carries a weapon on behalf of the people: cops, FBI, military, and (ironically) everyone who is implementing surveillance over the rest of the population. There’s an endless tail recursion problem with watching all the watchers, but – clearly – since a watcher has been granted extraordinary powers, they are more important to watch than the rest of the population.
(* Sam Harris might say something that stupid, ignoring the problem of accurately identifying a class of people. How do you do that?)