Assigning a profile criteria is a probable cause... therefore the 4th wouldn't apply.
The 14th wouldn't apply because race would not be a criteria.
A fairly elementary and easy method of assigning criteria to a profile. However, since you will not answer the question, I will have to answer it for you: The Constitution does not protect one from being profiled - specifically it does not address it. Trying to apply the constitution to irrelevance is up to lawyers and of course, once could argue that breathing air could be un-constitutional (though, that wouldn't be a very successful argument). My point is - it's easy to assign a criteria that would be difficult at best to apply a breach of the Constitution. The reason it has not been done is because of PC bull****. We don't want to hurt anyone's feelings, which is nonsense and I for one refuse to apologize for putting people's lives ahead of their feelings. Get over it.
Your frankly incorrect, at least in regards to the TYPE of profiling that is oft being proposed here.
You're trying to use the general term profiling and prove that singe the general use of profiling isn't unconstitutional then ALL types of profiling isn't unconstitutional, which is circular and poor logic.
Making a law that affects religions is not necessarily unconstitional. IE, saying that ALL religions can have their buildings tax exempt isn't unconstitutional. However, if you just said "The Catholic Church can be tax exempt" and that was it, that WOULD be unconstitutional. The fact that the broad application of that standard isn't doesn't make the narrow application okay.
Profiling, as a broad term.....IE in general you're more likely to look for males then females, nervous people over calm people, people with bulky clothing over tight fitting, those that are of the 20-30 year old range rather than older or younger, one way ticket over two way ticket, cash over credit middle eastern descent over none middle eastern, muslim over non-muslim, etc....where all the various criteria are used without extremely over valuing one or the other or focusing singularly on just the racial/religious ones is far FAR different than many peoples suggstions that EVERY muslim or arabic looking person should automatically, regardless of any other signs, be subject to extensive additional screening with some even advocating cavity searches for simply appearing to be a religion.
The former I spoke of isn't necessarily unconstitutional, each is making up a much larger profile and you're not segregating a portion of the population based on one fact. The latter is pure religious or ethnic singling out in an unreasonable and unnecessary way which would be a violation of the 4th and 14th.
Less than 1% of the muslim citizens in this country have committed any sort of terrorist activity. It is therefore an unreasonable search and siezure to exppose the other 99% to extensive and potentially degrading searches for no other reason than the way their skin color looks or their name.
I know that IT has already dropped a warning, but I am going to accentuate it. This thread is the perfect example of baiting and personal attacks. All the "lefty" and "conservative" crap stops now... as do the attacks on anyone. ANYONE does it and they will get thread banned and perhaps more. 
