A justified search is, so to speak, reasonable. Agents can then use various reasonable means to obtain the information, such as searching the contents of U.S. mail, one's home or office, or employing an undercover agent as in Lewis v. United States (1966). They can, without the need for physical intrusion as required by the archaic trespass doctrine, use modern surveillance methods, such as electronic eavesdropping as in Lopez v. United States (1963) or heat signatures. (Solove and Schwartz 83) Under the third party doctrine, officials can obtain information that you voluntarily provide to your bank, accountant, ISP, or email provider as per United States v. Forrester (2008). (Ibid 197; 199) In contrast, “a warrantless search is generally considered inherently unreasonable.” (Ibid 99) As noted in Katz v. United States (1967), “'the mandate of the [Fourth] Amendment requires compliance with judicial processes' and that searches conducted outside the judicial process, without prior approval of the judge or magistrate, are per se unreasonable... ” (Ibid 99) They fail to satisfy any of the four elements and the warrant fails to meet constitutional requirements (see Berger v. New York (1967) where officers failed to stop surveillance at