current jurisprudence on the 4th Amendment has favored first one side then the other, not for any great philosophical reason, but rather as a crude and ad hoc balancing act as new technologies are invented to improve the ability to search, or to hide.
Attempting to freeze the 4th Amendment in stone would presume knowledge in advance of new technology that we simply don’t have.
When the SCOTUS makes errors, we have the ability to change laws, or even amend the constitution to correct errors (like the 13th 14th and 15th amendments corrected Dred Scott decision). That feedback loop is probably necessary.
Say a new algorithm was invented that could guarantee that criminal communications could never be deciphered. What would that do to the ability to gather evidence?
Now imagine a new algorithm was invented that could guarantee that any criminal intent could be gleaned from any communication, so the criminal could be stopped before he could commit the crime.
One or the other would radically change the way we look as search and seizure in different ways. We can’t predict the future of complex things.
Oh, you mean thought crimes, pre-crime arrests? Hate crimes are more than enough thought crimes thank you, and they should be done away with. What a doofus. My idea of fixing the 4th is to make sure the probable cause portion is adhered to the way it is written. There is nothing in the 4th that allows searches with probable cause unless a warrant is obtained. Today all a cop has to say is he/she saw something suspicious and that gives them probable cause to search and enter your property without a warrant. Searches of people, vehicles and residences should require a warrant as is stated in the 4th.
Your rambling discourse is BS and more liberal like than conservative.