It's one they are granted when evidence is presented to a court for a warrant. In a public hearing.
That's not how things are spelled-out in the Constitution. And it does not make any sense. A public hearing will alert the suspect.
I'm pretty sure that the past decade has taught us that government does not respect this constitutional requirement.
No, we've known it for much longer.
So, they should get a time out from those powers until they can demonstrate that they know how to behave.
They are not children, to whom such an approach may be applicable. Nor will the criminals be willing to join the "cease-fire" you propose... Bad as government's intrusions into privacy are, they have neither killed nor raped many people.
Not even the scariest abuses — when police get a "hint" obtained with unwarranted search and perform "parallel reconstruction" — have targeted innocent people. Not yet. The time will surely arrive, but for the time being it is the IRS — not the NSA — that is used to suppress opposition. Them and the government's power to audit . But not the eavesdropping.
We have the Constitution, we just need the government to obey it. The previous President was often accused of "shredding" the document, but the current one is actually doing it.
In other words, we have the laws already — we just aren't following them. Creating new laws will not help that...
I would rather take my chances with the armies of terrorists and child molesters
How about fraudsters, thieves, rapists and murderers, embezzlers of public funds and bribe-takers? I don't think, I'm willing to have even a 10% higher rate of those things in exchange for unbeatable https.