[xzins]

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.

So, if they take me out of my house, then they can search it without a warrant?

That must be based on a photon, of an emanation, of a penumbra, 'cause it sure as hell isn't in the text.

[taxcontrol]

Part of what is being left out of this breathless reporting is that there was an occupant of the house who DID CONSENT to the police searching the house.

[Olog-hai]

Taking you out of your house would be a violation of the “persons” bit.

[trebb]

So, if they take me out of my house, then they can search it without a warrant?

More along the lines of: A domestic violence call brings the cops and one person says that the perpetrator has something illegal in the hose and proof of it will help the case. That person asks the cops to do a search or just OKs the search. The perpetrator doesn't want to be found out and says no to a search.

There are some permutations that would make sense and it is being put out there as something it is not. If I'm beating my wife and I have a violent felony and a history of drug abuse, I don't want my house searched but my wife might see it differently because weapons or drugs I have might serve to help her get me taken out of the house. Still room for abuse, but not the blank check that some are calling it.

[Lurking Libertarian]

So, if they take me out of my house, then they can search it without a warrant?

Only if both (1) they have a valid reason to take you out (here, it was probable cause to arrest), and (2) there is someone else in the house who consents to a search after you're gone.