[JimDandy]

Exactly where and in what context? And picking a few sentences out of a court decision is not legal research. A court decision and any precedential value can only be properly understood in the context of the issue(s) presented by the underlying case.

It's in the same Katz decision you were quoting.

"Over and again, this Court has emphasized that the mandate of the [Fourth] Amendment requires adherence to judicial processes," United States v. Jeffers, 342 U.S. 48, 51, and that searches conducted outside the judicial process, without prior approval by judge or magistrate, are per se unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment [n18] -- subject only to a few specifically established and well delineated exceptions. [n19]

which says much the same thing you did, but as the issue was context and accuracy, I added the Court's words as opposed to the paraphrasing, because contextually "a few specifically estabished and well delineated exceptions" isn't the same as "All Sorts" and "various". I wasn't disagreeing, merely providing the words of the Court for better context.

And see post 47.

I saw post 47, but was waiting for more posters to address it in depth, so I wasn't posting back-to-back.

Originally Posted by Spats McGee

One of the things that I see going on in this thread is that: (a) several of the posters object to the question as an unwarranted invasion of privacy; and (b) are trying to shoehorn that objection into legal terms.

and

Several of the posts that I've read look like the poster is trying to find some way to squeeze "mandatory question on a form as a violation of rights" somewhere in between the Fourth Amendment and Fifth Amendment.

Any objection to this question must be put into legal terms for a legal challenge, not? If I get called, and I object to this, shouldn't I go in forewarned about where the issue stands? A great many of these 4A and 5A questions hinge on whether the person answered a question or allowed a search when they knew, or should have known they didn't have to and similar events. Like that IRS case I'm not quite remembering. The guy didn't have to identify the income source, did it because he thought he had to, then couldn't object to it afterwards, because rather than refusing, he thought he had to and could prevent it's use afterwards.

You still have not cited a federal court of appeal case saying that the simple asking of a question is a search.

No I haven't. Nor have you provided one that says requiring a person to verbally or otherwise inventory the contents of their home isn't a search. I have provided several that show a search is not limited to an officer physically entering your home and looking around himself, and that compelling production of records is a search.

Have you considered simply writing a letter to the case coordinator, or the jury panel office, or whatever office sent you the summons, and indicating that you prefer not to answer certain questions on the form? That might resolve the issue for you.

From the sounds of his other posts, that ship has sailed. I think I saw him say he'd already answered it. As such, his answers may now be public record. This Oklahoma site says various states differ some are, some aren't. I also skimmed another article about it getting recent(2011-ish) federal court attention, so I don't know where it lies now.