OK FOLKS, I think we have to seriously look at this.
The "Barnes" case did NOT say it was legal for LEOs to conduct random home searches. It said that citizens don't have a right to resist. There is a huge difference. So if this sheriff were to conduct a series of illegal searches he would likely be sued (which the Barnes case ruling indicated would be appropriate). It is also very likely he'd lose in court and get his butt in a ringer.
Let us not confuse what the sheriff says is legal, with what the court says is legal. The court NEVER said an illegal random search was legal. They did say you can't resist but that does not make the search legal.
So let us say that the sheriff and his posse roll up to your house, and tell you that you have been selected to have your house searched. Based on this ruling you have no recourse but to let them in. Now let us suppose that said group of uniformed civilians decide they don't like the number of firearms you own, or the amount of ammo, or find a violation of one of those millions of laws that are still on the books but need to be removed.
So they then arrest you, for what ever reason they want, because you were nice enough to believe that they have a right to enter your home, no, you were told by the judge that they have a right to enter your home. And now you are hauled off, and if it is on the right night, you might have the privilege as an honest citizen to spend a couple of days with Bubba until you can post bail.
Doesn't matter that you will sue the heck out of the sheriff for improper search and seizure, you still have to endure what our constitution says you have a right not to endure.
There is so much wrong in this it almost makes me sorry that I brought children into this world, into a country that my father shed blood to protect during WWII, only to see our freedoms that so many brave soldiers fought and gave their all to protect. Almost...