The Constitution guarantees that peoples’ persons, homes, and effects are safe from unwarrented search and seizure. Now obviously we like having our privacy, and no one likes having strangers paw through their belongings; but then again we give up lots of things we’d like to live in a secure civil society. So what was the thinking behind this prohibition? Specifically, was there some precedent the Founding Fathers had in mind where the unlimited power to conduct searches had been abused for political purposes?
If you’re asking “So what’s up with the Fourth Ammendment, anyway?” then the answer is that the Founding Fathers were miffed regarding “Writs of Assistance” which were obnoxious, ethically questionable, and a clear example of the British “getting all up in America’s face”. Such things often irked American colonists and a lot of the things the British did to irk American colonists got prohibited when the Constitution was constituted.
This may or may not be the same thing as a Writ of Assistance, but I remember learning that British officials used to be given carte blanche, which literally gave then unlimited authority to search anywhere they wanted, for whatever reason. This was widely despised by the colonists, and was one of the major grievances that lead to the American Revolution.
Probably the same thinking behind this statement, generally attributed (in various forms) to Benjamin Franklin: “Those that would give up essential liberty in pursuit of a little temporary security deserve neither liberty nor security.”