The fourth amendment to be replaced by my proposal is as follows:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
This amendment rightfully and laudably gaurantees a certain amount of objectivity in the legal process. If there was no prohibition of unreasonable searches, then any officer of the government could subject an individual to weekly, daily, or even hourly searches until such individual capitulates to whatever that criminal official wants. Under my proposal, unreasonable searches and seizures are violations of individuals’ rights to the pursuit of happiness and/or right to liberty because they deny the individual their right to the use of their property or potentially to the use of their body for the duration of the search. Since, under my proposal, such violations of rights are forbidden except as consequence of an individual’s violation or credible threat of violation of another individual’s rights it is necessary to first prove the violation or credible threat before the search can take place. Other reasonable and objective methods than warrants issued based upon probable cause, supported by oath, with specific descriptions of items to be searched which do not violate the rights I have proposed may very well exist, but since the US has had a long history of applying that methodology and has therefore in theory honed its application, it is most reasonable to continue that practice unchanged, even though my proposal doesn’t specifically require it. Whatever the exact process for searches and seizures that Congress would legislate under my proposal would end up being, it would have to conform to the requirements that it does not result in compelling or permitting any individual to violate the rights of another individual, except as consequence of a violation of rights by that second individual, and it will face constitutionality challenges if it does not.