OK. I'm just trying hard at making a joke here so be patient...
They could have a doctor ride along and examine the x-rays of the people they scan. The program could then be legal under an Health Care mandate! Easy solution!
OK. Not so funny... that's why I'm not a comedian.
The program could then be legal under an Health Care mandate!
Whoa, I missed the "Health Care mandate" Constitutional amendment. Regular laws cannot override the Constitution, which says "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."
The roving X-ray vans are missing a warrant, probable cause, and a description of "the place to be searched".
the supreme court (led by scalia) has said that "heat-sensor" searches of homes are illegal. it's true there's a diminished expectation of privacy in vehicles, but i'd be very surprised if the x-ray vans withstood a legal challenge.
just recently, there was also a unanimous opinion also that held that warrantless gps tracking is unconstitutional.
"I would be surprised" is not a very good argument. What is clear is that there is no principle guiding the Supreme Court in these decisions; you have to know which way the political winds are blowing. That may "surprise" you, but it's still perfectly consistent with the reality of our political situation.
if you read through some of the big case from the last couple decades, you'll see that there are plenty of principles guiding the court's fourth amendment jurisprudence. i'd actually argue that the court's search and seizure doctrine has been far less affected by the "political winds" than many of its other bodies of case law
in my opinion, the biggest problem faced by the court in fourth amendment cases isn't political pressure, but the subjective notions of privacy of the individual justices. they've lived lives that are very different than those of the average american, and as a result i think their perception of what makes an expectation of privacy reasonable is a bit off
IIRC, they struck down heat images of houses without warrants because they reveal too much about the inhabitants' activities. This is way worse.