> Doesn't the 4th amendment say you need probable cause before spying/searching on someone?
Nope.
That's a valid interpretation, but that's not what it says. To directly quote Wikipedia (yeah, I know; IANAL): "the Court ruled in Dumbra v. United States, 268 U.S. 435 (1925), that the term probable cause means "less than evidence that would justify condemnation," reiterating Carroll's assertion that it merely requires that the facts available to the officer would "warrant a man of reasonable caution" in the belief that specific items may be contraband or stolen property or useful as evidence of a crime".
Your problem, really, is that you disagree with the government on what a "man of reasonable caution" would do.
Nope.
That's a valid interpretation, but that's not what it says. To directly quote Wikipedia (yeah, I know; IANAL): "the Court ruled in Dumbra v. United States, 268 U.S. 435 (1925), that the term probable cause means "less than evidence that would justify condemnation," reiterating Carroll's assertion that it merely requires that the facts available to the officer would "warrant a man of reasonable caution" in the belief that specific items may be contraband or stolen property or useful as evidence of a crime".
Your problem, really, is that you disagree with the government on what a "man of reasonable caution" would do.