The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures , shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue , but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures , shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue , but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”
Ah, the good old days. Now just a “quaint” notion.
The founders could never envision a day where criminals might have access to fully-automatic machine encryption. Clearly this amendment just applies to houses and papers that existed back when the Constitution was ratified.
Besides, the operative clause is "no Warrants shall issue", which means a warrant isn't needed.
Since they've treated the 2nd amendment this way for over half a century, what makes anyone think they'll have any problem treating the other amendments the same way?
That was back when the Government operated somewhat according to the Constitution.