The Fourth Amendment reads "no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause." Why do you think it says this instead of "no Warrants shall issue, but upon cause beyond reasonable doubt." ?

If the tool for determining probable cause is no better than a coin flip -- which is in fact the case (see my other post) -- then the intent of the amendment is being circumvented. It's the whole "probable" thing that's the issue at hand.

You didn't answer my question.

Here's what usually happens at this point in a politically-charged HN thread: I ask a question along the lines of, "Why are you so interested in defending an indefensible aspect of an indefensible war on an abstract noun?", and then I get a nasty note from the admins warning against personal attacks, even though none was intended.

So we'll need to agree to disagree on this one. I suspect we're coming from two very different places.

Our legal system very much distinguishes between venial and mortal sins. You can see that in the very language of the 4th amendment which is why I asked my question. The amendment recognizes that searching someone puts a far smaller burden on them than putting them in jail which is why the standard of proof is very different for those two actions.

My point here has nothing to do with the war on drugs. The same standard applies if law enforcement is searching for drugs or guns or stolen property.

You should ponder this some and then consider changing your point of view so that you can be correct more often in the future.