I suggest that you do some reading on the history of the Fourth Amendment, and on searches and seizures generally, before asserting that warrants are required before a search is conducted.
You are correct that just because the officer believes that a search is “reasonable” does not, in and of itself, make it constitutional; the person searched certainly can have an opinion different from that of the officer, and if he is charged with a crime the reasonableness of the search will be determined by the judicial system. Unfortunately, because of liberal judges, only when the cops actually find evidence of a crime in a search does the reasonableness of the search become an issue, and cops are free to harass innocent citizens all day long without any repercussions.
“Why bother with a warrant in the first place?” Because if the officer has a warrant no one can say “Boo” to him, and he is immune from any possible claim. The Framers wanted to limit the ability of officers to obtain warrants, given the abuses that took place when British authorities would issue “general warrants” that allowed cops to search whatever they wanted with no repercussions. That’s why the Fourth Amendment has such strict requirements for being able to obtain a warrant: probable cause, and specificity of the place to be searched and the thing or person to be seized.
I'm certainly aware of that. And that's the slippery slope when people and courts can't understand in plain language just what the Constitution says. Just like the 2nd amendment..but that's for another discussion.
If a cop comes to your front door and wants to come in “just to look around” you can tell him to get screwed, get a warrant. Same if you get pulled over. No, get a warrant.
The 4th amendment is not very long. It's not full of legalese, The Bill of Rights were written very simply so simple people like me can understand it. It's attorneys and courts that make it complicated.
So, you and I may disagree. And I'm sure there are thousands and thousands of cases and decisions using thousands and thousands of pages of BS to explain a simple little amendment that guarantees our rights. I'll just read it like it is written and go from there. "That’s why the Fourth Amendment has such strict requirements for being able to obtain a warrant: probable cause, and specificity of the place to be searched and the thing or person to be seized." It was supposed to be strict. I'm pretty sure now most judges just rubber stamp any warrant, but that's beside the point. I don't understand your point actually. So, since it's (the warrants) requirements are so strict, then the government shouldn't have to be bothered? Again, I don't claim to be as smart as a "constitutional law professor", but I can read. I've found that a lot of very smart people have very little common sense. And of course the old adage applies "if you can't explain it then baffle'em with bull shit." I haven't looked but I'm pretty sure a required class in law school is "bull shitting 101"
I helped my son with a report awhile ago about “no knock” entries by police. Back in the old days (England, colonial America, early U.S.), it was deemed “unreasonable” for the police (or King’s men) to not announce themselves at someone’s home. With or without a warrant.
Although today that argument is long gone after fighting the “war on drugs”. And obviously wire-taps have been around for a long time, and they are not announced. But it seems to me that these invasions of privacy are one of the reasons the Founding Father’s fought.
It seems to me that the British “writs of assistance” are in some ways similar to the modern-day NSA snooping (replace smugglers with “terrorists”). From a link:
Excerpt:
...The colonists were particularly concerned about broad, unparticularized searches performed under the authority of general warrants. In England, general warrants were widely used to suppress seditious publications. One particularly influential incident involved the North Briton, a series of pamphlets criticizing government policies published anonymously by John Wilkes, a member of Parliament.
After a particularly critical issue of the pamphlet was published, the Secretary of State issued a general warrant to search for the people who published the pamphlets. Wilkes and others who had been searched and arrested challenged the warrant issued against them. In Wilkes v. Wood, the King’s Bench held the warrant illegal.
In colonial America, general warrants were used to ferret out smugglers. These warrants, called writs of assistance, were issued to customs officials by the colonial courts. Writs of assistance commanded all subjects of the Crown to assist the officer executing the writ. The writs authorized customs officials and their subordinates to search anywhere they thought smuggled goods would be hidden and to break open containers suspected of holding smuggled goods. A customs official possessing a writ of assistance had “practically absolute and unlimited” discretion as to how the writ could be executed.
A particularly offensive feature of these writs was that they served as permanent search warrants, effective until six months after the death of the reigning sovereign. These writs inspired resentment through out the colonies, and after the revolution, seven states enacted constitutional prohibitions against general warrants.