He is if there is “probable cause” of a crime being committed. For example, if he hears someone screaming. Vic Mackey uses that technique all the time! 
We seem to be agreeing on things more and more, John. Do you find that as unnerving as I do? 
No, I wouldn’t support such an amendment. Primarily because I fear how it would interfere with law enforcement. Depending on how a right to privacy amendment is worded, it could make the job of law enforcement officers that much more difficult.
The door to your home shouldn’t be a mystic portal that transports you into a place where the laws of the land no longer apply simply because of your right to be left alone inside said home. It’s my opinion that for government to properly function when it comes to keeping the peace and enforcing laws it has to have some power to “get in your business” when the time is appropriate.
I have no problem with things as they are now. The “right to privacy” is fleshed out by judicial decisions and legislative acts. Laws that may relate to citizens’ privacy are deemed constitutional or unconstitutional on a case-by-case basis. I think that’s better than the blanket approach of a constitutional amendment.
There are other cases that rely on the right to privacy, GRISWOLD v. CONNECTICUT for instance, and here’s FindLaw’s search for cases citing GRISWOLD v. CONNECTICUT, 381 U.S. 479.
Personally I find Goldberg’s concurring opinion in Griswold to be the most compelling, I quote,
The Ninth Amendment reads, “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” The Amendment is almost entirely the work of James Madison. It was introduced in Congress by him and passed the House and Senate with little or no debate and virtually no change in language. It was proffered to quiet expressed fears that a bill of specifically enumerated rights could not be sufficiently broad to cover all essential rights and that the specific mention of certain rights would be interpreted as a denial that others were protected. In presenting the proposed Amendment, Madison said:
“It has been objected also against a bill of rights, that, by enumerating particular exceptions to the grant of power, it would disparage those rights which were not placed in that enumeration; and it might follow by implication, that those rights which were not singled out, were intended to be assigned into the hands of the General Government, and were consequently insecure. This is one of the most plausible arguments I have ever heard urged against the admission of a bill of rights into this system; but, I conceive, that it may be guarded against. I have attempted it, as gentlemen may see by turning to the last clause of the fourth resolution [the Ninth Amendment].” I Annals of Congress 439 (Gales and Seaton ed. 1834).
Mr. Justice Story wrote of this argument against a bill of rights and the meaning of the Ninth Amendment:
“In regard to . . . [a] suggestion, that the affirmance of certain rights might disparage others, or might lead to argumentative implications in favor of other powers, it might be sufficient to say that such a course of reasoning could never be sustained upon any solid basis . . . . But a conclusive answer is, that such an attempt may be interdicted (as it has been) by a positive declaration in such a bill of rights that the enumeration of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” II Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States 626-627 (5th ed. 1891).
He further stated, referring to the Ninth Amendment:
“This clause was manifestly introduced to prevent any perverse or ingenious misapplication of the well-known maxim, that an affirmation in particular cases implies a negation in all others; and, e converso, that a negation in particular cases implies an affirmation in all others.”
These statements of Madison and Story make clear that the Framers did not intend that the first eight amendments be construed to exhaust the basic and fundamental rights which the Constitution guaranteed to the people.
While this Court has had little occasion to interpret the Ninth Amendment, “*t cannot be presumed that any clause in the constitution is intended to be without effect.” Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137, 174. In interpreting the Constitution, “real effect should be given to all the words it uses.” Myers v. United States, 272 U.S. 52, 151 . The Ninth Amendment to the Constitution may be regarded by some as a recent discovery and may be forgotten by others, but since 1791 it has been a basic part of the Constitution which we are sworn to uphold. To hold that a right so basic and fundamental and so deep-rooted in our society as the right of privacy in marriage may be infringed because that right is not guaranteed in so many words by the first eight amendments to the Constitution is to ignore the Ninth Amendment and to give it no effect whatsoever. Moreover, a judicial construction that this fundamental right is not protected by the Constitution because it is not mentioned in explicit terms by one of the first eight amendments or elsewhere in the Constitution would violate the Ninth Amendment, which specifically states that “[t]he enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”
A dissenting opinion suggests that my interpretation of the Ninth Amendment somehow “broaden[s] the powers of this Court.” With all due respect, I believe that it misses the import of what I am saying. I do not take the position of my Brother BLACK in his dissent in Adamson v. California, that the entire Bill of Rights is incorporated in the Fourteenth Amendment, and I do not mean to imply that the Ninth Amendment is applied against the States by the Fourteenth. Nor do I mean to state that the Ninth Amendment constitutes an independent source of rights protected from infringement by either the States or the Federal Government. Rather, the Ninth Amendment shows a belief of the Constitution’s authors that fundamental rights exist that are not expressly enumerated in the first eight amendments and an intent that the list of rights included there not be deemed exhaustive. As any student of this Court’s opinions knows, this Court has held, often unanimously, that the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments protect certain fundamental personal liberties from abridgment by the Federal Government or the States. See, e. g., Bolling v. Sharpe, Aptheker v. Secretary of State, Kent v. Dulles, Cantwell v. Connecticut, NAACP v. Alabama, Gideon v. Wainwright, New York Times Co. v. Sullivan. The Ninth Amendment simply shows the intent of the Constitution’s authors that other fundamental personal rights should not be denied such protection or disparaged in any other way simply because they are not specifically listed in the first eight constitutional amendments. I do not see how this broadens the authority of the Court; rather it serves to support what this Court has been doing in protecting fundamental rights.
Of course one may chose to take Robert Bork’s position that the ninth amendment is just an inkblot on the constitution.
You may wish to throw away your ninth amendment rights, but I’m keeping mine!