I've got a couple of questions about searches that I haven't been able to find answers to.

1. If you were a low-key provider who got arrested, would LE take the time to get a search warrant and act on it?
2. In the case of a search warrant, in most cases they can't come and just ransack your location, right? Don't they have to have a specified list of what they can take?
3. Aside from money if they take things will they be given back once they are through?

Some layman answers to your questions:

1) It is possible, but probably unlikely, UNLESS LE has reason to suspect that you are involved in other criminal activity.

2) The limits of a search warrant are set by the judge who issues it.  If a warrant is issued for the premises at 123 XYZ St, everything there is fair game.

3) If you are not prosecuted, or are exonerated any money or property seized should be returned.  Unfortunately as a result of the federal RICO (organized crime) laws, this has changed.  To combat the maffia, the feds have allowed local authorities to attack property.  If you are a suspect, and you can't prove that the car you are driving, the house you live in, your cash on hand, etc, isn't  the proceed of criminal activity, it can be permanently seized.  There have been more than a few local PDs and sheriff's offices that have abused this.

1.) If a low-key provider got arrested, law enforcement would perform a search incident to arrest. The vicinity around the arrestee can be searched. This includes any envelopes, purses, bags, etc. within arms' reach. If in a car or nearby a car, the car would get searched. Police have a lot of leeway in warrantless searches because of the time and effort it takes to get a search warrant. Thus, many searches are conducted without a search warrant. Search warrants are usually for investigations in which there is no immediate arrest.

2.) The Fourth Amendment says "no warrants shall issue, but probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." So search warrants have to state the location to be searched, but that can be very broad since entire buildings can be named. Search warrants also have to state for what items are being searched. However, that too can be very broad. For example, a search warrant could be issued for drugs and since drugs can be hidden away in lots of places, this gives the police wide discretion as where to look. Police also aren't supposed to shut their eyes and ignore what is in plain view.

3.) Not necessarily. Police might keep seized property as relevant evidence or something that merits further investigation. If it's the proceeds of illegal activity, police can keep it too. An attorney may have to file a motion to return property.

I doubt the police would take the time to get a warrant unless they had reason to believe you had narcotics or some other fruits of a crime in you home.  They would have to articulate in the warrant why they felt you had the items they wanted to search for in your home and convince a judge to sign the warrant.

The search warrant must include probable cause to conduct the search in the first place and the items that the police are looking for must be identified in the warrant.  If the police are looking for stolen TV sets, then they can’t open dresser drawers pursuant to their search.  However, if they are looking for something like stolen jewelry and they open a dresser drawer and find narcotics then the seizure of the narcotics is legal.

Generally, any items seized pursuant to a search warrant that are not used as evidence and are not contraband are returned to the owner upon the owner’s request.

Like everything else, this is how the system is supposed to work but it is still subject to abuse.

1. They may want to follow up and search other locations that might have evidence of the crime.  For example, if a person was arrested at a hotel, they might want to search the person’s house.  (See below for the type of things they would be looking for.)  However, I would guess that the odds are unlikely, since they could probably make the case on the cops' testimony regarding the circumstances of the arrest.  It depends on how efficient they want to be and how much they want to spend in terms of recourses.  My guess is they would be going for a guilty plea, so they don’t need too much more, but it wouldn’t prohibit them from doing so.  More of a question of allocation of resources rather than legal limits.

2. They can search for anything that might be evidence of the crime as long as there is a reasonable basis to believe the evidence may be where they want to look.  The warrant can be pretty broad.  It doesn’t have to be very specific.  For example, if they know a gang member lives at a certain location and have arrested him, the warrant may say “any papers or other evidence showing that X inhabits or frequents a particular location.  Any photographs, drawings, or writings reflecting membership or association with other gang members.”  (That is off the top of my head, so it isn’t exact.  But that is the type of thing that they can look for.)

When they suspect that crimes have occurred using a computer, like maybe posting on a site known for being a conduit for illegal activity, they can seize the computer and examine the hard drive.  There could be a trial of messages that would be evidence of the crime. “Hello. Would like to meet. How much?”  And so on.  Needless to say, 300 daffodils isn’t exactly subtle unless you also work out of a flower shop.

3.  Unless they get a conviction, they should return anything.  However, there are civil forfeiture statutes that allow them to take fruits of a crime via a civil proceeding without a criminal conviction.  I am not sure of the details, but that would also have to result in a legal proceeding before they could keep it.

I agree with what Cali_tailchaser wrote.  

I want to add that whether the police will do more in a particular case than they would in most will depend upon what they think is going on.  If they believe they will find evidence of more serious crimes they will have an incentive to look for it, and to do what the law requires so that what they find can be used in court.  This is true regardless of whether they think the evidence will point to the lady, her customer or third parties.

Take it from someone who has been there.  A cop can and will do whatever he wants - then it's up to you to fix the damage.  I got arrested by cops that had no warrent - they tore apart my house - planted drugs in my house I know for a fact weren't there before - stole cash and jewelry from me that they claimed didn't exist and what they did take they then claimed went "missing" from the evidence vault - pulled a gun on me when I was clearly not armed - put me in a cell and refused me food or water or a phone for 36 hours.  I'm not kidding.  Don't expect cops to play by the rules.  You'll be crying "injustice" sitting in a cell.  On the other hand - I have had cops show up at my door and ask to be let in.  I've asked for a warrant and they didn't have one so I asked them to leave and they did.  Another time they had an outdated warrent.  I said it was outdated and they left.  Another time it was a phony warrant - I called the office and they said the cops at my door were off duty and had no warrant.  They left.  It all depends on the cop and what mood he's in!

Cops do whatever they want these days.  They will search your house with or w/o a warrant.  They totally abuse the system and their badge.  

Dont fall for the intimidation that is what they want.  So use the system to your advantage.  

My advice is CYA  and get the best security system u can, b/c i assure you they break the law and u can prove it.

A good friend of mine who is a provider was busted several months ago.

Her version of the story is that a gentleman called and set up an appointment (nothing incriminating said) and once he arrived he attempted to hand her money which she declined, he sat it on a dresser instead and asked if she was "fs" she shook her head yes. He asked to use the bathroom and a few seconds later, (you guessed it) there was a knock at the door.

She was told that she was being arrested for solicitting prostitution and when they asked if they could search the room (a 3 star hotel) she told them no.  They searched anyway and took unused condoms, candles, her laptop and cell phone as well as 600 or 700 hundred dollars.

She also declined to answer any questions and phoned her lawyer.

Trial date is still pending.

So, point is that a warrant is not necessary for a search (in her papers it says that she agreed to the search)

Cops are liars that say and do what ever they want.