>there's a warrant, court order, reasonable suspicion, etc. that establishes the existence of evidence
Warrants dont establish existence of evidence. they just authorize the state to override your rights, because they convinced a judge. All of this is weaponizable.
The way to establish evidence is to have evidence. If you dont have evidence you haven't established it. Forcing you to divulge something in your head is to force you to give up evidence against yourself, and the ultimate trespass.
I can't think of a situation I'd authorize someone else to do that.
I'm not agreeing with the practice, I just explained it, how pieces of evidence (and testimony) can legally establish that there's evidence that the defendant has ways to produce.
what you're suggesting is even worse - a court order to force someone to divulge some information under threat of jail. Unauthorized searches are an violation of rights but what you're suggesting is another level and on the same authority.
I dont want to live in your society. I don't want to empower anyone to do that to me, even if they claim they're only going to do it to criminals and bad guys.
Warrants dont establish existence of evidence. they just authorize the state to override your rights, because they convinced a judge. All of this is weaponizable.
The way to establish evidence is to have evidence. If you dont have evidence you haven't established it. Forcing you to divulge something in your head is to force you to give up evidence against yourself, and the ultimate trespass.
I can't think of a situation I'd authorize someone else to do that.