Although it may seem at first glance contrary to the use of the comma preceding "shall" in the second amendment, having the comma before "shall" in the search and seizure amendment is also needed for similar reason. The absence of this comma would have opened the door for or forced seeing "against unreasonable searches and seizures" as merely describing the end purpose not the execution path. That would mean there is nothing saying that violating that right of being secure against those kinds of unreasonable searches and seizures may only come from unreasonable searches and seizures not other things especially reasonable searches and seizures because of how close they are to unreasonable searches and seizures. In other words, like how a bodyguard may seek keeping whom he protects not only from getting harmed but from being in the risk of getting harmed to begin with, the direct or implementation purpose of the amendment could be taken as avoiding the potential of those unreasonable searches and seizures not just those unreasonable searches and seizures themselves.