Are there any scenarios where not needing a search warrant would be advantageous?

I'm thinking along the lines of human trafficking or child porn purveyors, etc. I was once in public library administration where I was involved in an undercover policeperson who came in one day to arrest a state senator for using our public computers to look at child porn. Would the policeperson have to wait to get a warrant? I'm just brainstorming here.

I'm sitting here and just now filling out my ballot which I received yesterday. Despite the Sierra Club's concerns (I've been a member in like, forever) I'll still vote Yes. I do agree with the Sierra Club that we need to work toward zero reliance on fossil fuels, but that's not going to happen any time soon, and in the meantime at the very least some of the funds are set aside for conservation.

I'd be interested in your take on Proposal 20-2 about search warrants.

I'm voting yes on 2. People keep their entire lives on their phones now and i think their entitled to as much privacy there as they are in their homes.

Re: Proposal 2 - I never thought of that, probably because I don't use a cell phone for anything other than having a Tracfone in my car for emergencies.

I was thinking more along the lines of if these Qanon/militia types or mass shooters are planning something and the authorities want to monitor them to ward off a disaster, I'm all for that. Or if they want to see who all are involved in a child trafficking ring it would be advantageous (aka Epstein).

On this issue, I seem to be able to see both sides of it. The police in this country have become so corrupted that I look at everything through that scenario, but they haven't always been so militant.

P.S. I think people would be foolish to think there is anything "private" about what they do on their cell phones these days.