So you’ve found another case for us to disagree on? Luckily I truly enjoy disagreeing with you. :)
He was on solid legal ground from a textualist perspective only. From an originalist point of view, he was wildly afield. A person’s papers and effects are their papers and effects. Where they are located notwithstanding. years of policing, ( also not Constitutional in every case) have flattened the 4th Amendment. An originalist interpretation of the 4th would not allow the police to read your mail if you left it lying on the front porch without a warrant, duly sworn. The idea that your papers and effects must be behind a locked door in order to be safe from the government is a totalitarian idea.
LOL. I do love the intelligent conversation, for sure. :)
In the recent cell phone case, the issue didn't just involve where the "papers and effects" were located, but who owned them. In this case, the information was the cell phone data that was kept and stored by the phone company -- and which was owned by the company under the terms of a contract between the company and the customer. The customer, in this case, has voluntarily ceded ownership of the data. That was the basis of Thomas' dissent -- and I think he was 100% correct on it.
So your example of mail "lying on the front porch" isn't a good comparison. A better comparison would be mail that was put into the trash and left outside the house for collection. Courts have repeatedly affirmed that no search warrant is required for the police to go through your trash -- for the simple reason that a person who throws something in the trash outside the home has made an affirmative decision to give up any claim for protection of the material under the Fourth Amendment.
This is one of those situations where I may not like the result of a judge's decision, but I agree that his decision was the correct one.