Again, if you already know with 100% certainty the fruits the search, then there's no need to do it as you can already prove whatever case you're building. Peo

Again, if you already know with 100% certainty the fruits the search, then there's no need to do it as you can already prove whatever case you're building. People are presumed innocent until proved guilty which is to say search warrants are practically always used against innocent people. And just because a search warrant comes up short does not mean the person is innocent. A person's rights are not absolute. There are limitations, exceptions, and cases where they are taken away. Search warrants are an exception where a persons right to privacy are infringed upon in service of a greater good. It's not done lightly, and it will never be perfectly accurate. Taken to an extreme, if we treat the right to privacy as an absolute, that would mean one could murder with impunity on private property so long as it's out of view. People could strongly suspect, but not prove, the murders without infringing on the right to privacy. On the other hand, a murder occurring doesn't give LE carte Blanche to search the houses and computers of everyone in the county. We have to compromise in between. It's a grey area, but I think in this instance it was perfectly reasonable and narrow. But it could be argued that this is to the left or the right of where the compromise ought to be.