>2) Why were the Founders OK with the common law rule which permitted the use of illegally obtained evidence?
Have you READ the 4th amendment; they were NOT “OK” with illegally obtained evidence.
The 4th provides that ALL warrants MUST particularly describe the person [or things] to be seized; therefore there could be no “fishing expeditions.”
Wrong. Prior to Weeks, the universal rule was that:
“Evidence obtained by means of a search warrant is not inadmissible, either upon the ground that it is in the nature of admissions made under duress or that it is evidence which the defendant has been compelled to trade and commerce; that the evidence has been unfairly or illegally obtained, even if it appears that the search warrant was illegally issued.”
This was the rule in both FEDERAL and STATE courts.
(See for example: State v. Edwards, 51 W. Va. 220, 59 L. R. A. 465, 41 S. E. 429; Shields v. State, 104 Ala. 35, 16 So. 85; Bacon v. United States, 38 C. C. A. 31, 97 Fed. 35; State v. Atkinson, 40 S. C. 363, 18 S. E. 1021; Williams v. State, 100 Ga. 511, 39 L. R. A. 269, 28 S. E. 624; State v. Pomeroy, 130 Mo. 489, 32 S. W. 1002; Gindrat v. People, 138 Ill. 103, 27 N. E. 1085; Trask v. People, 151 Ill. 523, 38 N. E. 248; Starchman v. State, 62 Ark. 538, 36 S. W. 940.)
In fact, the common went so far as to allow evidence to retroactively justify what would otherwise be an unlawful search or unlawful seizure. In essence, if you could show the defendant was guilty, then you had a complete defense against charges that the search violated the defendant’s rights.
So your history is wrong. (As usual.)