While I realize it's not THAT simple. It might as well be that simple if they are allowed to do searches without warrants in the first place.
Same with arrests.
There is a reason the Fourth Amendment protects against
unreasonable searches and seizures. There are times when it just does not make sense to require a warrant. SCOTUS's way of phrasing that was to say in so many words that searches or seizures without a warrant were presumptively unreasonable unless done under a recognized exception to the warrant clause.
For example, searches incident to arrest. Are you really going to say that a deputy who arrests a bank robber in the middle of Nowhere, Kansas, should not be allowed to search the robber for weapons before putting him in the car and carrying him to jail?
Or, that a police officer cannot arrest a felon on the spot when he witnesses the felony? He's supposed to let the guy go while getting a warrant for an unnamed individual for which he has only a physical description?
There are a number of entirely reasonable exceptions to the warrant clause. I do not agree with all of them; but some of them make total sense.
My objections are more in the area of how the courts bend and twist recognized exceptions to fit the circumstances of the case in front of them, broadening government power rather than limiting it.
The Good Faith Exception is one example. Part of the court's specious reasoning is that it will not limit police misconduct to exclude evidence obtained because a magistrate approved a defective warrant. And, that police have to be able to rely on magistrates. Yeah, right. Nice sleight of hand. Who said police were the only ones who needed limiting? Who said magistrates wouldn't become a lot more careful if their warrants were criticized? And, that police wouldn't become a lot more careful in reviewing their warrant applications and double checking their warrants if they knew a magistrate who screwed it up might ruin their case? And, best of all, who said the people should not be well protected? Nobody. It would have been just as easy for the courts to exclude evidence arising from a magistrate's mistakes or misconduct as a police officer's.
A recent SCOTUS case ends up with a similar result--weakening protections. I forget the case name, but the gist of Scalia's reasoning was that in that case, excluding evidence would not limit police misconduct, so the evidence should be allowed. More sleight of hand. He seems to have forgotten that it would create care and thoroughness in the direction of protecting the innocent.
According to Dr. Roger Roots in an essay about whether police are constitutional, there was a time in this country where the searcher and magistrate were liable for double and even triple damages for a search based on less than probable cause. Boy, I bet that would cut down on errors, misconduct, and testing the limits real quick.
With your passion, Freedom, you can turn into a first class critic of 4A abuses by the courts. Just take the time to learn more about how the dysfunctional system works to protect government at the expense of the rest of us. Then you will be in a position to persuade people.
escribe who/what you are looking for. 
