such a search of personal belongings must be authorized by a warrant or probable cause. Id. In the search at issue in this case, employees’ personal belongings were similarly and unreasonably rummaged through. Similarly, the Virginia Court of Appeals held unreasonable a search of miners for smoking materials, justified by the Commonwealth as a permitted administrative inspection pursuant to state statutes authorizing safety inspections of the mining industry. Commonwealth v. Burgan, 19 Va.App. 172, 450 S.E.2d 177, 180 (1994). The Virginia court said that the warrant exception applied to the search of commercial premises, not to the search of employees, whose “expectation of privacy remains undiminished by the statutes.” Id. But see Anobile v. Pelligrino, 303 F.3d 107, 123 (2d Cir.2002) (<HOLDING>). We do not by our holding here today intend to
holding that the defendant voluntarily consented to a search and the patdown of his person did not exceed the scope of his consent which included a search of the groin area holding patdowns of race track employees did not exceed permissible scope of the administrative search where object was to find performance enhancing drugs and syringes for injecting horses holding that when reasonable suspicion exists a school search will be permissible in its scope when the measures adopted are reasonably related to the objectives of the search holding a warrantless search of cell phone contents did not exceed permissible scope of search incident to arrest holding that a defendant may object to the exclusion of members of the defendants own race