FR: Never Accept the Premise of Your Opponents Argument
With all due respect to the Wisconsin Supreme Court, the 4th Amendment says nothing about police investigating a crime.
Article IV. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Also note that the Founding States had originally decided that the states did not have to respect the rights expressly protected by the Bill of Rights. Only the feds had to respect those rights. It was not until the states ratified the 14th Amendment (under very questionable circumstances imo) that the states obligated themselves to respect constitutionally enumerated rights, including the 4th Amendment.
“4th Amendment says nothing about police investigating a crime”. . .”but upon probable cause”
But is it not implicit to obtaining a search warrant that there exists PC that there is presumption of a crime. Otherwise, if you had no PC of a crime, and provide what you are looking for, what would you base the warrant on?