Most people would be appalled if they saw what the police get away with when they ask for search warrants. In the two areas I have personal experience with, the process of getting a warrant is an administrative inconvenience to the police, not the fair review that it's supposed to be. It's also important to keep in mind that it's similar to a prosecutor getting an indictment -- it's the law enforcement side telling only their side of the story, twisting facts however they please with no rebuttal, being told to a judge that maintains regular working relationships with these people and whose main concern is making sure the affidavit covers their ass enough not to get overturned on an appeal.
In France in the 60s the police used to have fill-in-the-blanks search warrants: pre-signed and pre-approved, with the name of the searchee conveniently left blank, so officers could type in whatever they wanted whenever they needed.
I say "in France" and "in the 60s" because it's been proven to happen there and then, but it's probably still common in many parts of the world...
My personal experience reflects this as well. Secret service obtained a search warrant looking for evidence of credit card fraud for my apartment based on some old consumer electronics packaging in our trash and recycling bins, bins shared with 2 other apartments nonetheless.
I think you know the answer: if judges will approve it 95%, law enforcement becomes convinced that the process of obtaining approval is superfluous, and is nothing but a barrier to getting their job done.
The problem is, that is a violation of the persons rights. S ome publications report that anywhere from 5-10% of WARRANTED searches were invalid. So imagine if you dropped that prerequisite, what that number would end up being? Would LEO selectiveness drop, and put the level of effort in validating the search onto the defense? Is that fair to the defendant? Absolutely not.
law enforcement becomes convinced that the process of obtaining approval is superfluous, and is nothing but a barrier to getting their job done
I don't have a problem with giving law enforcement more work to do if it means increased diligence in the court room and due process actually being executed...duly.
after this ruling we will see, right ? Imagine a supreme court judge aski ng if All of his internetndata was available to besearchedwithout a warrant And being told yes.... one could imagine a similar outcome when such a case reaches them.
Why they feel the need to do an end-run around judicial overview I have no idea, because you rarely see a judge ever say "no" to law enforcement.