Understand first that I am not justifying - morally, legally, ethically - anything. I am simply going on the existing body of case law that governs police behavior. Furthermore, I make no attempt to defend or justify bad police conduct which runs counter to the established body of law. The established body of case law defines what is Constitutional and what is not. You are free to disagree with case law and so work to elect executives, senators and representatives who will appoint justices who will interpret the law in a manner more to your liking.
You have to be precise in your definition of ‘search’. A sniff around the outside of a vehicle that is parked or stopped (for valid legal reasons) in a public area is not a ‘search’ as it has been defined by the courts. Nobody and nothing has entered into your car. They are detecting the evidence that is leaking out, into the public space.
Maybe this decision says that they are reconsidering their previous rulings. But, your house and its curtilage has always been treated differently from a mobile conveyance by the courts and the residence is afforded more Constitutional deference and protection.
And no one need enter a house yet the USSC ruled that using a dog to sniff around a house is a "search".
The Supreme Court today said police officers cannot use drug-sniffing dogs along the perimeter of a house without first obtaining a search warrant. In a 5-4 ruling handed down Tuesday, the high court said the use of police-trained dogs to investigate a home's surroundings constitutes a "search," as defined by the Fourth Amendment.
source
I believe the same definition of "search" should apply. Obviously the court disagrees but, as I said, it has been wrong many times before.