RS or PC should be required to run names and car plates, is that guy that tries to drum up the support here in Washington. If so can you link.
Also did you read Hibbel, where SCOTUS actually seemingly countered some of your claims.
Again the comparison of government agents to private individuals, the constitutional restraint to remain secure from infringement of my person and my effects applies to cops and their masters.
It's been a loong time since I read Hibbel and I'd have to brush up, but given that I find your belief ABSURD. Seriously. Lunatic. I'm not trying to be a jerk, I'm just saying the idea (criticizing the idea not the person. you may be a great guy n stuff) that cops should need ANY indicia of suspicion to run a name or a car plate makes no sense from a libertarian or other perspective that I can think of
heck, in some circs, we (police) advertise to everybody in the community that person X is wanted or has a warrant and is wanted. It's totally disclosable and should be.
Justice delayed is justice denied and society, the victim of the crime (that caused the warrant to be issued), and in some cases even the defendant are best served by expeditious service of a warrant.
As time goes by witnesses' memories fade and/or are altered by discussion of the incident with others, reading about it, etc. Many may have already given a statement etc. to cops or defense attorney or whatnot by the time the warrant is issued, but in many cases not. Generally speaking, with rare exception, the sooner a witness is questioned the better and from a defense angle, as time goes by it is usually harder not easier to find rebuttal evidence etc. People move away, die forget etc. If the suspect is innocent he is going to want his defense attorney/investigators to have a better chance of finding evidence/people that can rebut the states' case and the passage of time is usually going to work against that.
For the victims, they can get closure quicker, and for society - we can get justice more quickly and it is more likely that justice will be served , defining justice in this sense as getting a verdict that reflects what actually happened.
Note also, that when delay of trial is due to DEFENDANT's actions (iow hiding away and avoiding trial /warrant service), there are several hearsay exceptions that may work against him IF he is innocent. For example, the general principle is that one has the right to confront the accuser and that others can;t testify as to what OTHERs said etc. (which is what hearsay is). But there are exceptions when the witness dies, can;'t be found etc. again that sometimes kick in WHEN THE DEFENDANT was the reason for the delay. For an innocent suspect, having the ability to challenge testimony is an extremely important right.
The presence of a warrant merely says there is PC to believe X happened in the past. And that X is a crime. Setting aside "victimless" crimes (which i generally oppose e.g. war on drugs etc), it is a way to bring an accused to account for what he is suspected of, to either (hopefully) clear the air and his name if he is innocent, or give closure and serve justice if he is guilty.
I could AT least see the argument for example, that cops should have indicia of suspicion to run a registration to see the NAME of the vehicle owner.
I can;'t grok what argument would say that cops need an indicia of suspicion to see if it has been stolen which unlike most warrants references a past crime AND a current crime (if it is being operated at the time).
The only "argument" I can see to require indicia of suspicion to check for warrants or stolen hits for a car (doubly so for a parked unoccupied car) is the argument that 'darnit, it should be harder for the state to bring persons before the courts to answer for their suspected crimes.
And the harder you make it to locate a subject of a warrant, the greater incentive you give to a criminal to abscond and in the case of a stolen car, the greater incentive you give a criminal to steal a car and to flee. Ceteris paribus, the greater a criminals perception as to the ease of remaining outside the grasp of justice if they commit a crime, the greater incentive to commit crime.
I'd seriously love to hear your theory as to why indicia of suspicion should exist in order to check for warrants.