prosecution, but they’re also not deaf and dumb. If they observe or are made aware of a situation that causes them to be concerned that unlawful activity has occurred, I expect they will report it to whatever the appropriate source is.” 8 . We note that Wyman’s reasoning on the question of whether the home visits are searches under the Fourth Amendment arguably has been called into question by the Supreme Court's subsequent Fourth Amendment jurisprudence. The Court has since repeatedly held that consensual administrative searches qualify as searches under the Fourth Amendment, even though refusal to consent carried no criminal penalty and the searches were not part of a criminal investigation. See, e.g., Bd. of Educ. v. Earls, 536 U.S. 822, 833, 122 S.Ct. 2559, 153 L.Ed.2d 735 (2002) (<HOLDING>); Vernonia Sch. Dist. 47J v. Acton, 515 U.S.
holding railroad regulation requiring random drug testing without particularized suspicion to be reasonable in light of connection to public safety holding that consensual random drug testing of students participating in extracurricular activities were searches under the fourth amendment even though they were not part of a criminal investigation and a positive test resulted only in suspension from participation holding that consensual suspicionless searches of government employees personal belongings in the workplace were searches even though refusal to consent carried no criminal penalty and the searches were not for law enforcement purposes holding that random drug testing for student athletes did not violate their fourth amendment rights holding boston police departments random drug testing program unconstitutional under state constitution because body searches cannot be justified by some generalized sense that there is a drug problem  and that random urinalyses of police officers will solve or at least help to solve the problem or its consequences