The point of a search is to gather evidence, requiring the evidence that would be the result of a search is obviously a non-starter as a system.
That kind of reasoning allows wholesale collection of communications data by the NSA and other agencies. Since that practice has been widely criticized, there must be something missing from your argument.
No one is advocating warrantless searches or not requiring reasons for warrants.
If I want to get a warrant to see who you're calling, it is inherently a broken system that requires the list of people that you called as cause to obtain that warrant.
Any kind of reasoning allows wholesale collection of communications if you misread it properly.
Ah, so you do agree with the premise that there must be compelling evidence to warrant a search?
In that case, all you(pl.)'re haggling over is the "price point" of how much evidence is required to support how invasive a search. I'm unsure how that results in the kind of heated debate that seems to happen here.
That kind of reasoning allows wholesale collection of communications data by the NSA and other agencies. Since that practice has been widely criticized, there must be something missing from your argument.