Really? How about FLIR, which can show which room you are in and what you are doing?
How about IR lasers which, directed at a window, can record sounds (speech) inside the house?
How about RINT and COMINT? You can observe those from outside the "curtilage" of the sucker's property. Cordless phone? Got you.
All's fair, right? I mean, if it's war on the citizen, well, then, LE has to win! They just have to!
The only use of FLIR that I have ever witnessed was using the fire departments scanner to try and locate a father who killed the mother and was holding his two kids hostage in a decent sized house. There was already a search warrant for the house and he had fired numerous shots at the first officers to respond.
IR lasers that record a conversation from a window and/or any tapping of telephone or wireless communication is already settled case law. This requires a Title 3 wiretap authorization and that is the most difficult affidavit and court authorization to write. In fact, they are far more difficult to obtain than a search warrant. They are a grade A pain in the butt and are most often used in large scale drug investigations or racketeering investigations when other investigative means have failed. You have to demonstrate to the court that you can’t make the case without doing this and you need the highest level of probable cause of any warrant/affidavit. They are continually monitored and scrutinized throughout their usage.
I am not sure how any of this makes war on the citizen. In 2001, the Supreme Court said you needed to have a search warrant to use FLIR after officers used it to detect an indoor marijuana grow. I can’t think of another crime that FLIR would show and I have no issue with the SCOTUS decision to require a warrant.
Many people don’t know this, but it is illegal to monitor any persons cordless phone conversation without their permission and that applies to law enforcement too.
So everything you alleged cops would use to abuse people needs a search warrant?