I wish that with a court order, we could read the thoughts of a suspect, too...  But that&#x27;s not possible, either.<p>Remember that a police force doesn&#x27;t need infinite, perfect access to all of a target&#x27;s communications to catch them. Think about the case we&#x27;re describing: we have enough information to convince a judge that this person is a suspect. In order to get evidence to convict, you can:<p>* hack into their devices to retrieve stored data or install malicious software like keyloggers
* bug their place of living and work for video, audio, and WiFi capture
* interview&#x2F;interrogate them, and everyone they associate with
* search their place of living and work 
* place tracking devices
* watch their every move with drone or human surveillance
* have a human or drone tail them
* record all the metadata from their Internet communication  
* record the contents of any unencrypted communication<p>We actually have all the access we need, particularly since we&#x27;re allowed to hack into the target&#x27;s devices. The only thing we CAN&#x27;T do, is include the target in bulk communication capture schemes. We actually have to pick targets and spend resources on them.<p>To be honest, I might be OK with that practical limit even WITHOUT a warrant requirement. If a police force believes that a suspect is worth spending their limited resources on, they must be worth something. If adding someone to a watch list is free, they&#x27;ll do it to everybody.