This is a quote from the thread with the new bill of rights things. I wanted to make a comment on this, or actually, give you a hypothetical situation that helps explain why this is a neccessary evil in a free society. Maybe I interpreted your meaning wrong, if so then sorry. Let's say a cop hears that there's a house where some people live and they possess item "X", which they aren't supposed to have. Never mind if it's illegal because it's contraband, stolen or whatever, just that it's illegal for these particular people to possess. The cop goes into that house without a warrant and sees item X, arrests the people and puts them in jail. They are convicted because "guilty is guilty", even though the cop entered without a warrant. Let's say another cop gets bored one day and starts doing house to house searches to try and stir up some people that are breaking the law. Eventually he finds a house that has somehting illegal, those people are guilty because guilty is guilty and the technical details of how he caught them are unimportant. What about the rights of all the innocent people who's houses he searched? What if the cop in the first example had heard that "a house on Street Y posseses item X"? Does that give him the right to search all of the houses until he finds the illegal item? People who get off on a technicalities are the result of a neccessary evil of a free society, that eeil being the limitations we put on those who enforce our laws. If we don't put controls on those who enforce our laws then who is supposed to protect us from them abusing the power we give them?