Amendment IV: 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. [Emphasis added.]

Can you tell me how a search warrant could meet these requirements, and still justify the seizure of 11,179 materials not classified, including albums, newspaper clippings, other personal papers, and passports, as well as empowering agents to rummage through the former first lady’s clothing and underwear?

Do you really believe the warrant “particularly described” the albums, papers, passports, and underwear? It it did, the warrant was blatantly over-broad and the search was unconstitutional. If it did not, the agents went far beyond the warrant, and the search was still unconstitutional. But then, I never went to law school. I was taught to think logically and morally, not legally.