Can you explain what you think the drafters were thinking about when they added a prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures? If the police can use evidence gained from unreasonable searches and seizures, why would anyone care about prohibiting them? If the government (say government based overseas to which your colnies owe allegiance) can "take your stuff" and convert it for their own ends (or perhaps destroy it), what good will a prohibition on "unreasonable searches and seizures" do you? After they've got your stuff and can use it however they wish (or destroy it), it's too late. The damage is done. The fact the search and seizure was unreasonable does you little good.

Is it the searches and seizures themselves that were undesired by the drafters? Or does it have something to do with what's taken and what happens to it afterwards?