[GrandEagle]

but one has to do with the reasonableness of the search, while the second imposes a limit on the ability of the government issuing a warrant to protect the police from liability.

I have searched both the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers and have found no support for your position. I have, however, found a wealth of support in the anti_federalist papers to support my position. In fact, a couple of states, PA being the most vocal, would not enter into the agreement without the guarantee to be free from search and/or seizor without a warrant supported by evidence. I find absolutely no evidence that they though a warrant to be evil, but have found where they found searches unsupported by a warrant that had supporting evidence to be - and I quote - "grievous and oppressive"

If you have any supporting evidence I would be interested in hearing it.

Cordially,
GE

[AuH2ORepublican]

GR, an explanation of how the text, structure and history of the 4th Amendment shows that it is best interpreted as two separate clauses, and thus not requiring warrants in order for a search be deemed reasonable, may be found in pages 3-13 of the following PDF: http://islandia.law.yale.edu/amar/lawreview/1994Fourth.pdf
Perhaps it won't convince you, but I think you'll at least find the history and analysis interesting.

If you're interested in this and other issues of interpretation of the 4th Amendment, and have an hour to spare, read the whole article (it's 67 pages).

BTW, I know that I'm in the minority when it comes to the Warrant Clause, but I'm too much of a textualist to believe otherwise. (If you can find the old Kelo threads, you'll see that I similarly make a textual argument that the 5th Amendment does not require courts to determine whether a taking is for public use, but that a whole other matter).

FReegards,

AuH2O