&gt;legal searches of suspects with prerequisite probable cause<p>We&#x27;ve seen the court abuse that whole &#x27;probably cause&#x27; to the point of being meaningless.<p>&gt;First, there is a huge difference in consequences. If you search a phone and nothing is there then the person isn&#x27;t significantly harmed. Killing someone is a huge consequence and it&#x27;s irreparable.<p>So because the harm isn&#x27;t as immediate, certain human rights don&#x27;t matter as much?<p>&gt;Second, the court proceedings insure we are only searching people who deserve it.<p>Because the court says so... which is as good as the President saying the target deserved the assassination.  The court is still part of the government that can&#x27;t be trusted.<p>&gt;So you can&#x27;t compare the two.<p>You can always compare different things.  In fact, any comparison of real life topics is being made of two different things.<p>&gt;But assuming the president ordered the assassinations of people we knew deserved it<p>Who deserved it according to the President, who we don&#x27;t trust because they are a member of a government which we are talking about not having trust in.<p>&gt;I&#x27;d still say &quot;what&#x27;s the problem&quot;<p>Those pesky human rights...<p>&gt;Finally, you are substituting in something that most people consider inherently immoral.<p>I&#x27;m only using an example that is an easier violation of human rights to understand.  It is far easier to explain to people why violating the right to life is wrong than it is why violating the right to be secure against searches and seizures.<p>&gt;I think it&#x27;s pretty clear a search of a phone to recover evidence is not inherently immoral.<p>If your morality is one that allows an abusive government to violate human rights then that isn&#x27;t a morality we share.