The Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land. Any government action contrary to the Constitution is illegitimate. If cops take evidence from somebody's home without having a warrant that was issued on the basis of an oath or affirmation of personal knowledge sufficient to constitute probable cause, there is no reason why that evidence should be regarded as being in any way superior or more trustworthy than evidence given to the cops by a thief.
Are we in disagreement here? On either part? Correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t think so.