It’s to the point where we need a new amendment to bolster the 4th in the modern era.
Not saying we SHOULD need one. Because I agree the spirit (and honestly the letter) of the 4th covers us. But clearly bad actors are winning the fight right now.
Surprisingly, that's not at all what we've seen. For example in Carpenter vs. United States, the Supreme Court was asked whether tracking someone via cell-transaction records required a warrant under the 4th amendment. Chief Justice Roberts and the Court's liberal justices said "yes, it is a violation because citizens should have a reasonable expectation of privacy in their movements." Meanwhile the most prominent originalists (Thomas, Gorsuch as well as Alito) filed dissenting opinions lamenting the decision, saying that the 4th amendment doesn't provide any protection for these records.
Anyway ordinarily I wouldn't respond to a political rant, but I do think it's important for HN readers to know what the most important judges in the country are actually saying on this point.
Also, as of now SCOTUS has decided a right to privacy doesn't exist within the Constitution. They were willing to get rid of that in order to overturn Roe V. Wade.
The problem with wanting an originalist interpretation of the Constitution is that the Constitution doesn't really say what most people think it does.
But would they seem like papers to someone in the 1700s? "Papers" in that context are physical documents, parchment and ink.
That's the problem with Constitutional originalism - it boils down to interpreting the mind of an imaginary ghost, which fundamentally leads to justifying confirmation bias by proxy.
Should LE be allowed to look at all the recipients of your snail mail without a warrant? Absolutely not. They, therefore, should not be allowed to read your call logs. It’s basically the same.
If you really want to get technical, the Supreme Court has no business in judicial review, as that is not explicitly stated in the Constitution. Marbury v Madison is more tradition than anything.