[dragonwriter]

> Yes, but at the time the Constitution was written warrants were a requirements for a search. If a British officer showed up on your property and demanded to search it without a warrant you could literally shoot him.

By the time of the Constitution, a British officer demanding to search your premises had more problems than whether or not they had a warrant.

Its true that by the time of the Constitution, most states required particular warrants -- these requirements were adopted in the Constitutions many states adopted when the declared independence. General "writs of assistance", which were transferrable blank checks issued to particular officers that lasted for the entire length of a monarch's reign (and for 6 months thereafter!) were permitted prior to that (perceived abuse of these by the British customs authorities was, in fact, one of the major source of tension leading to the revolution.)

But yes, the purpose of the Amendment was to protect individuals.

> The exclusionary rule or "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine, with which you seem to be confusing the Amendment itself, is a twentieth century invention of the Warren court.

Its worth noting that before the exclusionary rule, there was no remedy for most violations of the Fourth Amendment. The exclusionary rule doesn't substitute for the protection of the Amendment, it gives them some (though limited) teeth.

[s_q_b]

Substitute Constitution for Revolution and I'm in full agreement.