The 4th Amendment and the personal rights it secures have a long history. At the very core stands the right of a man to retreat into his own home and there be free from unreasonable governmental intrusion.

Fairness is what justice really is.

Abortion is inherently different from other medical procedures, because no other procedure involves the purposeful termination of a potential life.

It must always be remembered that what the Constitution forbids is not all searches and seizures, but unreasonable searches and seizures.

The dichotomy between personal liberties and property rights is a false one. Property does not have rights. People have rights.

For the Fourth Amendment protects people, not places. What a person knowingly exposes to the public, even in his own home or office, is not a subject of Fourth Amendment protection. But what he seeks to preserve as private, even in an area accessible to the public, may be constitutionally protected.

I think that the Court's task, in this as in all areas of constitutional adjudication, is not responsibly aided by the uncritical invocation of metaphors like the ' wall of separation,' a phrase nowhere to be found in the Constitution.