Having the warrant issued constitutes probable cause for executing the warrant, doesn’t it?
Probable cause must have been determined to exist, which met at least some of the criteria required for issuing the warrant.
But if there's no cause for stopping the person in the first point, how can that be legitimate?
Or would you say that setting up "warrant checkpoints" where they stop you like a DUI-checkpoint, search you like a TSA-checkpoint, and fish for warrants like the FBI (see Wako and the congressional investigation
) is completely ok? — and would you be absolutely certain that they couldn't have a judge on speed-dial to authorize a warrant based on the evidence of the just-executed search?