You're still taking the perspective of "what if they come after me" which is highly improbable. And not the "what if they can't go after someone who has wronged me". I'm not saying that should flip your point of view, just being aware that it's at trade-off.
That does assume that I'm more likely to be the victim than the perpetrator though.
I've seen various studies (and unreferenced claims) about the idea that we regularly break multiple laws every day without realizing it. Allowing law enforcement more access to various parts of my life requires that I trust they won't come after me for something that is technically illegal but currently rarely enforced.
There is also the risk that what is legal today is not tomorrow. That's no small risk given the potential outcomes depending on who is in power later on.
I hope I don't come off argumentative here, that's not my goal but text alone is pretty limiting sometimes. I get your point and it is a good one, I just personally am more concerned with the risks of what could be used against me than having an authority protect me.
I'm also a bit biased here. I live in an unincorporated area and, unless some real shit is going down, if I call the police they may show up tomorrow.
I've had my house raided, and $10k worth of gear taken by law enforcement, which they kept for 8 months, finding nothing, then I got to go and pick it up.
My perspective is permanently in "what if they come after me" as a result of this.
However, even prior to that incident, I've believed that violating the rights of an innocent party is a worse outcome than not being able to access incriminating data of the guilty.
You're still taking the perspective of "what if they come after me" which is highly improbable. And not the "what if they can't go after someone who has wronged me". I'm not saying that should flip your point of view, just being aware that it's at trade-off.