Take the first complete thought from this sentence, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated." What this means is that the people have a right to be secure. To do that they must be able to keep things private, or hidden from the government, and everyone else too.
The right is the people's right to keep things hidden and out of view. That's why it's infringement by the government was so restricted to probable cause and the testimony of witness. The unreasonableness refers to the infringement of the right, not the right itself.
That's the way the founder's thought of it. Without this right and the limit on it's infringement, folks would be open to all government demands to disclose what any individual's been up to.
The supremes don't really honor that right and neither does the government. It's the subject of the search that determines whether, or not, the right to privacy will be honored. In the case of abortion, the Supremes have said it can be done, because the it's a private matter. Yet, if someone pisses me off and I hire a killer to cut him up in small pieces and feed him to the fishes(all a private matter), the Supremes won't give me the time of day. Also they won't dump a gun registration and ballistic finger print on that ground and the 5th Amend. They pick and choose to order the world to their vision, that's it.
The right to privacy does not provide for the overruling of any law, except for those that provide for an erosion of the Constitutional limit placed on the infringement of that right.