The 4th amendment was rendered superfluous the first time that the Supreme Court ruled that the amendment authorized "reasonable" search and siezures.
This interpretation of the 4th amendment is a common error made by the citizenry and the courts.
The first part of the 4th amendment, similar to the 2nd amendment, is a "description" as to why there is a need for the amemdment and the second part of the 4th amendment describes the "ONLY" proper procedures that must be followed in order to search citizens and seize their property.
Allowing for "reasonable" search and seizures without sworn warrants being issued is ludicrous and is anti-liberty because that means every search and seizure has to be litigated for "reasonableness."
Again, the intent of the 4th amendment was to prevent "reasonable" search and seizures without a warrant.
Thanks.