The cases discussed are Rochin v. California (1952), Breithaupt v. Abram (1957), Schmerber v. California (1966), and Winston v. Lee (1985). Ad hoc evaluations of reasonableness in the Court's bodily intrusion decisions are contrasted with the arbitrary line drawing and constant tinkering that plagues fourth amendment decisions such as U.S. v. Montoya de Hernandez (1985). In this case, the Court based its decision on border search exceptions to the warrant and probable cause requirements and never confronted the reasonableness of what happened to the defendant. By requiring such a low threshold of suspicion, the Court insures that many innocent people will be harassed. Second, the decision rests on technical distinctions between probable cause and reasonable suspicion and never confronts broad principles such as human dignity. In contrast, the Court's mainstream bodily intrusion decisions do confront the issue of reasonableness and should be adopted as a model for fourth amendment decisionmaking. 174 footnotes.