In general, I agree with you. Conceptually, innocent until proven guilty implies freedom from searching until a reasonable level of suspicion can be established, and the Constitution bears that out fairly explicitly.
But I have a question about the wire-taps issue. As I understand it, the big change is this:
Used to be that if the police wanted to tap your home phone (for example), they went to a judge, presented their evidence for suspicion, and assuming the evidence was sufficient, they got permission to tap your home phone. Then, if they later wanted to tap your work phone, they had to go through that process all over again.
Now, they request permission to "tap" a person. Meaning that they still go to a judge, and present the evidence for suspicion, and assuming the evidence is sufficient, they get permission to tap any communications resource you use... home phone, work phone, cell phone, email accounts, etc.
Please correct me if I have misrepresented the situation.
If that explanation is basically correct, though, I don't see the problem. It seems more like a realization that, hey, people used to only have a very limited number of ways to communicate electronically. Now they have lots and lots of options, and making the LEOs repeat the process for each possible method is a waste of time and money, and impedes their ability to do their job.
Besides, if they have sufficient evidence of suspicion to warrant an investigation... well that is a *reasonable* search-and-seizure situation. The LEOs should be able to use any observational tool (more or less) that they want in the process of conducting that investigation. What is the problem with that?
The Constitution says: "Amendment IV: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
Obviously, that was written long before electronic communication was available. At some point, "telephone" became a viable, particular "place" to be searched. The change is that now "electronic communications" has replaced "telephone" as a viable, particular "place" to be searched. Still seems a lot less intrusive than an undercover human investigator, which most people are ok with, but clearly falls *way* outside the lines established by amendment IV.