Where do you even get a warrant requirement to search? I can assure you that when it was adopted, no such requirement was thought to be present.
At the time -- and for years afterward -- no warrant was thought to be necessary for a search. But, I hear you ask, what about the bit about "no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched..."?
At the time, an officer could be sued for false arrest or for a unreasonable search or seizure. A warrant was merely an insurance policy. If the officer had a warrant, he couldn't be sued. If he searched without a warrant, he risked being sued. Of course, if he found evidence of a crime, the search wasn't considered "unreasonable". How could it be?
At some point, the law evolved to give federal officers immunity from such suits. That's when the courts started invention things like the exclusionary rule and rules against "profiling".
Personally, I think the country would be better served with the original method.
By the way, you should also note that the 4th Amendment cannot be legitimately applied to the states.
By the way, you should also note that the 4th Amendment cannot be legitimately applied to the states.
Well, if you want such a strict interpretation of the constitution, I'll agree with you. It doesn't apply to the states, only to the fed. States are to come up with their own constitutions that may or may not have 4th Amendment protections.
And since we're being so strict in our constitutional interpretation, the 9th Amendment and the 10th Amendment prohibit the fed from doing anything not specifically enumerated in Article I, Section 8.
Every crime save counterfeiting, piracy and treason is the jurisdiction of the states.
So, no more federal war on drugs, among many, many other things. Are you really such a strict constructionist, or is it only when convenient?