J„ dissenting) ("Those risks [of illegal drug use], however, áre present for all schoolchildren. Vemonia cannot be read to endorse invasive and suspicionless drug testing of all students Upon any evidence of drug use, solely because drugs jeopardize the life and health of those who use them.”); City of Indianapolis v. Edmond, 531 U.S. 32, 44, 121 S.Ct. 447, 148 L.Ed.2d 333 (2000) ("[T]he Fourth Amendment would almost certainly permit an appropriately tailored roadblock set up to thwart an imminent terrorist attack. The exigencies created by these scenarios are far removed from the circumstances under Which authorities might simply stop cars as a matter of course to see if there just happens to be a felon leaving the jurisdiction.”) (emphasis added); see also Cassidy, 471 F.3d at 80-81 (<HOLDING>). 20 . This emphasis remains today, especially
holding the principals grant of authority to speak is not the main concern in applying the partyadmission exception to the hearsay rule instead the test is whether the statement concerns matters within the scope of the employment recognizing the legitimate concern that the governments power to conduct suspicionless searches may be limitless given the threat of terrorism is omnipresent but finding that concern not implicated where the government has imposed security requirements only on the nations largest ferries after making extensive findings about the risk these vessels present in relation to terrorism and  the scope of the searches is rather limited holding that concern with foreign prosecution is beyond the scope of the selfincrimination clause recognizing that in certain matters the community has no legitimate concern holding where 1 the government provided the defendant with all the necessary drugmaking materials 2 the government provided instructions on how to make the drugs and 3 the defendant sought out the materials and help from the undercover government agents the case set the outer limits to which the government may go in the quest to ferret out and prosecute crimes but the governments conduct did not rise to the level of a due process violation