Can you explain what you think the drafters were thinking about when they added a prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures? If the police can use evidence gained from unreasonable searches and seizures, why would anyone care about prohibiting them? If the government (say government based overseas to which your colnies owe allegiance) can "take your stuff" and convert it for their own ends (or perhaps destroy it), what good will a prohibition on "unreasonable searches and seizures" do you? After they've got your stuff and can use it however they wish (or destroy it), it's too late. The damage is done. The fact the search and seizure was unreasonable does you little good.

Is it the searches and seizures themselves that were undesired by the drafters? Or does it have something to do with what's taken and what happens to it afterwards?

The rule existed in traditional English Common law from long before the U.S. declared Independence.

Being that the Fourth Amendment itself was a reaction against General Warrants and Writs of Assistance, it's hard to imagine the founders would have wanted even less protection here than English law already provided

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exclusionary_rule#History_of_th...

This is a great policy and common law argument. But, much like the parent comment, can you point where in the text of the 4th amendment (or the constitution) where it says anything about an exclusionary rule?

Because if we are going to argue policy and common law, than we also have restrictions that don't appear in the text, but appeared in common law, as well.

The Ninth amendment states that the Bill of Rights is not intended to be exhaustive enumeration of liberty.

There is no danger in erring on the side of too much liberty. Parent errs on side of denying of liberty already clearly enumerated.

Sure. I think we are mostly in violent agreement. I'm actually not trying to argue that it's not a violation of the fourth amendment (i strongly believe it is). I'm arguing that the literal text of the fourth amendment alone is not, by itself, a great explanation of what it really means in today's world. The reply I original made was to the argument that because 'overriding public danger' doesn't appear in the literal text of the 4th amendment, there can be no such exception.

As we've both gone through, the 4th amendment can't be viewed in a vacuum, or else it would be nonsensical.

So saying "i don't see where the literal text of the 4th amendment says that" doesn't seem to me a complete and total argument.

For example, it literally says nothing about anything but papers, persons, houses, and effects. None of this explicitly covers phone calls, or even e-mail. You have to argue by analogy or inclusion in today's equivalent of papers or effects

It also only prevents unreasonable searches and seizures, and there is an argument to be made that "special needs" or "overriding public danger" make the searches not unreasonable. I don't personally buy it, but ...

As you mention, there is also historical context on all sides to consider.

That is in fact, exactly my point. Saying "it ain't in the text" is even far past what textualism adherents do, and i'd venture to guess, would not make for a very useful statute construction philosophy.

I don't know what Supreme Court you've been watching, but it's not the modern US Supreme Court, which has made in unmistakably clear that the only time they'll apply it is when there is no colorable argument that the cops didn't know they were engaged in a fourth amendment violation. There is no effective exclusionary rule in the US anymore, it might as well not even exist.

Breaking rules has consequences. The 4th Amendment is a rule that says the government cannot conduct illegal searches. It should follow, then, that the consequences of a 4th Amendment violation include the inadmissibility of any evidence the violating search was used to gather. Otherwise it's not a rule.