Originally Posted by
TSORon
Not according to the law it dosent.
But to further the point. An officer is allowed into a home for some reason (nothing specific) and see's 5 pounds or even a single ounce of marijuana sitting on a table. He arrests the homeowner / resident. Has he violated the homeowner / residents constitutional rights? No. Better yet, the officer has a warrent for a search for a stolen car, but when he opens the garage he discovers a meth lab. He arrests the homeowner / resident. Has he violated the homeowner / residents constitutional rights? No.
It does not matter if it is a search, a casual encounter, or an administrative search, they all fall into the plain sight rule, the same thing applies to the administrative search that the TSA performs. If we find it during a legal search then it is fair game.
I think that reviewing the law might be helpful.
First, in your prior example the TSO was working in his official capacity as an agent of the government. The other two were not. So that is another reason for your analogy to fail.
Second, the plain view doctrine has its limits as well. The officer in the first instance does not have the right to start searching closets looking for drugs and doesn't have the right in the second instance to even enter the house since it is very unlikely a stolen car would be there.
Third, in both of your scenarios the officer was legally entitled to be where he is based on specific (not implied) consent or by an order of the court. An administrative search is not on the same level.
Fourth, the LEO is trained to recognize drugs. You are not.
P.S. You may want to try a new spell check program -- "dosent", "see's" and "warrent."