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.Hypothetical case. Imagine a state where incestual relations between consenting siblings is illegal. Could anyone ever be charged with a crime under such a law, without there being some violation of the 4th amendment? Certainly. Continue the hypothetical to where a gardener witnessed the copulation. So did a neighbor. And a friend overheard them talking about it. Witness testimony, no need for any searches or seizures or cameras in the bedroom.
Same hypothetical. Does the law in question violate the 5th amendment?
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.Nope, still doesn't.
Heroin use is illegal. If one does it in one's home, is that constitutionally protected? Nope. That right to privacy does not exist. Do we need bedroom cameras to ensure someone isn't shooting up in there? Nope. The Constitution prevents the state from doing things like that or from busting in at random to check. The Constitution does not prevent the government of a state from making the act illegal.