It seems that a 24/7 set of federal judges with smartphones on them for quickly processing warrant applications is a better fix to “warrants are slow” than giving cops the power to simply skip them when they feel like it.
As it stands now, the majority of federal search warrants contain easily falsified perjury, and yet they are still approved by judges almost without exception and the feds that wrote them suffer no consequences whatsoever.
I’m not sure why they have an issue with the current system, outside of blatant abuse.
The point of a warrant is the independent audit. As long as that's enforced, it being at least partially in retrospect shouldn't be a problem; the issue being how you would give that teeth in a way that's both not absurdly disproportionate yet still sufficiently discouraging. In any case, you'd at a bare minimum want a one sided notification a priori.
I'd be more worried about whether judges really are independent and trying to critically reject warrants, rather than exactly when they do so. And another weakness in our current system: warrants are a pretty voluntary form of oversight. There are no reliable checks against warrant-less actions that should have required a warrant. Unless it's really egregious, police will not be held liable, defense attorneys may not be informed, and they may even be able to use the ill-gotten information for personal/legal gain, because finding a parallel construction once you know what you're looking for is obviously much, much easier.
So I'd say that the problems are more one of a too-weak audit, and the moment at which that happens is not critical, even if it is relevant.
As it stands now, the majority of federal search warrants contain easily falsified perjury, and yet they are still approved by judges almost without exception and the feds that wrote them suffer no consequences whatsoever.
I’m not sure why they have an issue with the current system, outside of blatant abuse.