No Warrant, No Search!

After further research, I agree.

I have found this:

"It is not disputed that the District is a part of the United States and that its residents are entitled to all the guarantees of the United States Constitution including the privilege of trial by jury and of presentment by a grand jury. Legislation restrictive of liberty and property in the District must find justification in facts adequate to support like legislation by a State in the exercise of its police power.

Congress possesses over the District of Columbia the blended powers of a local and national legislature. This fact means that in some respects ordinary constitutional restrictions do not operate; thus, for example, in creating local courts of local jurisdiction in the District, Congress acts pursuant to its legislative powers under clause 17 and need not create courts that comply with Article III court requirements. And when legislating for the District Congress remains the legislature of the Union, so that it may give its enactments nationwide operation to the extent necessary to make them locally effective." (http://supreme.justia.com/constitution/article-1/48-district...)

However, I'd like to add that by reading Amendment XXIII, you will see that the Constitution had to be amended just to allow the citizens of DC to be able to vote for President and Vice-President. That was in 1961. The citizens of the 50 States of the Union exercised their right to vote in the 1960 Presidential Election, but those in DC were not permitted to vote. That's right, they had to amend the Constitution to be able to vote.

"August 22, 1978: Congress approves the District of Columbia Voting Rights Amendment, which would give District residents voting representation in the House and the Senate. The proposed constitutional amendment was not ratified by the necessary number of states (38) within the allotted seven years." - History of the District of Columbia (http://www.narpac.org/ITXDCHIS.HTM).

"Other proposals have included a retrocession of most, or all, of the District to Maryland—a plan that Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy in 1964 deemed impractical and unconstitutional—and the admission of Washington, D.C., to the Union as the fifty-first state.

In 2000, the courts rejected a series of argu­ments suggesting that the District's inhabitants were, on various constitutional and policy grounds, entitled to voting representation in Congress without an amendment. See Adams v. Clinton (2000). More recently, the courts have rejected efforts to invalidate a congres­sionally imposed limit on the District's ability to tax nonresident commuters. See Banner v. United States (2004). In that case, the court noted that, "simply put…the District and its residents are the subject of Congress' unique powers, exercised to address the unique circumstances of our nation's capital." - The Constitution and the District of Columbia (http://www.heritage.org/Research/LegalIssues/wm1404.cfm)

My previous conclusions were drawn from the later quotes, but your comments made me pursue further research.

Thank you.