Remember, at the time of the US Constitutional Convention, it was NOT criminal trespass to go onto the property of someone else and have a look. It was only CRIMINAL TRESPASSING if you entered a building or the "Close" of the house (i.e. the yard around the house). There is some question as to barns or other non-residential housing.
The biggest difference is in Law Enforcement. Lets remember that Sheriffs, Sheriff's deputies and Constables existed, but only were paid on a per action basis (i.e. you had to pay them to do anything, serve papers, evict someone, or even to arrest someone, someone had to PAY). Now Sheriffs could hold someone he thought was a criminal, an escaped slave or an runaway indenture servant and charge that person room and board (and even if found NOT to be a criminal, could be sold into indenture servitude, or if African American into Slavery, to pay the cost of such room and board). If a person could NOT make bail, he or she had to pay for their time in jail, even if found not guilty of whatever charge they were charged with (This happened to the last accused "Witch" in the Salem Witch Trails of 1692, she could NOT pay for her time in jail, so she stayed in jail till she died).
Now, Judges were paid by the State, but if you wanted to prosecute someone for a crime, you had to hire your own attorney to do so. The Attorney General did exist, but he was the State's Attorney and was involved only if the STATE was involved (i.e. Treason, thrift of State property etc), for ordinary crimes, including murder, the victim (or in the case of Murder, the Murdered victim's family) had to hire the attorney to do the prosecution. Now, some towns and cities had by the mid 1700s adopted the practice done in England where towns would hire an attorney for anyone in the town who needed to file a criminal complaint against someone, but given that 90% of the American Population in the 1790s did NOT live in towns or cites, meant 90% of the population had no access to such attorneys and thus had to hire their own. What we called District Attorneys did not come into being in the 1820s/1830s period (Through New York City had them by the 1790s) when a push for such attorneys to prosecute criminals pushed the various state legislatures to create them.
History of New York City's District Attorneys:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_County_District_Attorney
Philadelphia;s District Attorney was only formed in 1850, but many of its functions had been performed by the Deputy State Attorney General but unevenly, thus the creation of the County DAs in 1850.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_Attorney_of_Philadelphia
New York County District Attorney has only existed since 1818:
http://manhattanda.org/history-office#1196
As late as the Molly McQuires, it was still possible for people to file private criminal complaints and hire their own attorney for even Murder cases (1876-1878):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molly_Maguires
Now, most cities and towns had "Nightwatchmen" but these had no more power then a normal citizen, unlike District Attorneys, what we Call Police started in France, spread to England and then to the US. In fact many English and American writers in the 1700s bragged that under the Common Law you did NOT have something like the French Police to terrorize the population, American and British Liberty forbade such an institution of tyranny. This all changed in the 1820s and 1830s as first England and then the US adopted what we call police. In the US Police was restricted to large cities, and then more to keep labor in check then any other single reason. State Police did not start till Pennsylvania adopted its State Police Force in 1905 (and then that was to provide some state control over people with Police Power, the Pennsylvania Coal and Iron Police had existed for decades by that time, Given full Police power by the State of Pennsylvania, but hired and paid for by whatever Corporation wanted them, generally to beat up labor organizers).
More on the Pennsylvania State Police:
http://www.portal.state.pa.us/portal/server.pt?open=512&objID=4451&&PageID=462122&mode=2
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pennsylvania_State_Police
The Coal and Iron Police, which has been called the "only true terroristic organisation to ever exist in the US":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_and_Iron_Police
More on State Police forces nationwide:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_police_(United_States)
New York City Police was only formed on 1844:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_New_York_City_Police_Department
Replacing the early Nightwatchmen system, but the Nightwatchmen system only operated at night, in urban areas and had to release anyone it arrested at dawn or show to a Judge evidence of criminal activity:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watchman_(law_enforcement)
In rural Areas, you did have the "Sheriff's patrol" but it was much more popular in the South then elsewhere in the English speaking world. It was also tied in with Militia Duty. The Sheriff's Patrol was a duty any free male had to perform, at least once a month free white males had to "Patrol" certain intersections of the local roads to make sure no one with criminal intent was traveling on them. Outside the south rarely done, in the South mandated duty for all free whites males more to keep the African American Slaves from being able to organize a revolt then anything else.
Thus if you look at the Bill of Rights it was created at a time period where what we call District Attorneys and Police simply did NOT exist. Sheriffs and Constables did, but they were paid on a per job basis NOT a Salary. Judges were on Salary, but that is about all. Thus the protections of the Bill of Rights were adopted and reflected the law enforcement restrictions of the time period. Patrick Henry, who opposed the Adoption of the US Constitution, on reading the Bill of Rights, stated that his objection to the lost of liberty due to the adoption of the US Constitution still existed for "These rights were never threatened".
I had to go over the above before I answered your question. Thus the real question should be "Who is doing the search and why?". If it is someone looking to make sure you pay for something you agreed to pay for, that is like a person asking you for postage fees when you received a letter (which was the practice then, stamps were NOT invented till the 1830s, thus all mail prior to then had to be paid for by the recipient in addition to the sender). Is the message more like a notice on a bulletin board? i.e. intended for one person, but anyone who could deliver it could pick it up after reading to see if he or she could deliver the note.
As to searches, it was NOT a Crime to enter (trespass) onto the fields of someone else to check out what they were doing (If such a trespasser did any damage, he was liable for the damage, but that is Civil Trespass not Criminal Trespass). If a window or door was open, you could look into it, if what you can see could be from outside the "Close" of the house that was legal and if what you saw was criminal it was enough to have probable cause for a Search Warrant to be issued (Given this would be a Criminal Matter, but handled by private attorneys, you had an inherent check, no one would spend money to hire an attorney for a Search Warrant unless there was clear evidence something to support the criminal charge was where the person claimed it to be).
On the other hand, look back into the 1700s, was it expected for conversations inside a house or a room to be private? For papers to be private. The answer is yes. The same with electronic communications, is it intended to be between two people as a private conversation? i.e. Telephone or cell phone, yes (Yes, I know the courts have ruled otherwise for Cell Phones) or a broadcast like someone yelling down the street? i.e. on a radio (Which is what the Courts have called Cell Phone for technically it is a public media not a private land line through which the call is being made through). I lend to calling Cell Phone the same as a conversation between two people in a private room. On the other hand, a message sent via a radio (CB or FM band) is more like yelling down the street, thus no privacy in such conversations.
Thus, I believe the US Constitution is a "Living" thing, it has changed as the country has changed. It had to, given the background in which it was born, and the changes within its first 50 years of existence, it had to change. The legal profession became a true profession, not something someone did as a sideline. District Attorneys and Police forces had to be addressed. This was complicated by the Adoption of the post Civil War Amendments and those Amendments later expansion of extending the Bill of Rights to the States (i.e. a Bill of Rights written in a period without District Attorneys and Police, being applied to District Attorneys and Police). Even Scalia accepts that what was good in 1790, may not be good today. For example in the 1790s, it was still illegal to have for profit corporations unless chartered by the state and then for a limited purposes and limited life time only. Today's corporations, which can exist forever, can do anything is something the founding fathers would have rejected as inherently evil, which was the common law rule and a rule the founding fathers understood given the power of the East India Company and the Hudson Bay Company. Both existed at that time period, both were for profit corporation that could, and did do anything, could last forever and were viewed as hostile to American interests. Thus a living law and Constitution, to address changes not only in technology, but society itself.
Changes sometimes are good, the changes done since the New Deal, or bad, the changes done from the 1860s to Great Depression (The change in the law was huge during that time period, labor went from a presumption of one year employment to at will, rental properties went from one year in duration and payment at the end of the term, to at will and payment of rent at the start of the term, the three evil sisters of the common law, became entrenched in American law (None of these three sister existed prior to 1800, many states took decades to accept them, thus did NOT firmly became the "Common Law" in the US till the 1860-1930 period, The three evil sisters, are 1. The Assumption of the Risk, 2, The Fellow Servant Rule and 3. Contributory negligence.). Since the Great Depression we have seen the Courts slowly change the rules adopted 1800-1935 back to the Common Law Rules of the period prior to 1800. At will employment and housing is still with us but I can be hopeful for a change.
Side Note #1: Even today, if a stream of water flows through your land (i.e. does NOT start to flow on your property) it is viewed as a public road. Mother Jones used this rule in the 1890s, right after West Virginia passed its first law making it a crime to entered into any area with a No Trespassing Sign, to enter a coal mine area while standing in a cold mountain stream to talk to the men in the mine to join the Union.
Side note #2: More on the Sheriff's Patrol. In the South the Patrol was done till the Civil War. IT lead to the south's Militia reputation in the Revolution and the Civil War. In the Revolution the New England Militia was the best Militia in the World, capable of standing up to Regular troops but did little "Sheriff's Patrol" for it interfered with training. In the South, the Militia was among the worse Militia in the world during the Revolution, almost never capable of standing up to regulars. The reason was simple, doing the Sheriff's Patrol had higher priority then doing actual military training, the South was more worried about a Slave Revolt then any British invasion. Come the Civil War, the New England Militia had deteriorated due to the fact the Native Americans were no longer on its frontier, where the Natives had been for almost 200 years ending before 1820. Thus no need for the extensive Militia training so training declined, membership declined and by the 1840s most New England States wanted the fines for NOT attending as opposed to actual attendance, and thus converted the fines for not attending a drill to a head tax (i.e. the state wanted the MONEY more then it wanted its Militia trained).
On the other hand, in the South the Patrol survived till the Civil War, for the simple reason it was one of the main tools to keep the Slaves in their chains. It provided a pool of people who could enlist in quickly raised units, quickly trained (for use of a rifle was part of being in the Patrol), able to accept killing other humans (the Patrols were licensed to do so, and it was considered good practice to kill a slave every so often to keep the rest in fear, thus the killing was done by the Patrol, the owner was compensated by the State) by men who had worked together (But needed training to operate at a larger level then a 5-10 men gang) and armed not only with Rifles but knives and other weapons. This permitted the South to Field an Army quicker then the North, that was better then the North for the first six months of the war (But the time the first six months was gone, the North had more then caught up to the South in the quality of its troops, but it took more time AND once the North had an edge in training, it never really lost that edge, outside sources who report on both armies keep repeating this, the Northern Soldiers were better, but the South even today, maintain it had the better soldiers.
Side Note # 3: The Texas Rangers were founded in the 1823 by Stephen Austin. The Rangers of the 1830s-1860 period were a Military unit not a Police unit. The Rangers did do some Police work (as did the US Army of the same time period), but that was NOT its primary reason for existence. This Texas Rangers were dissolved in 1865. The Texas State Police where formed in 1871 as its replacement. The Texas State Police had a good reputations among African Americans and Americans of Mexican descent for it was created by the Reconstruction Government of Texas to protect both groups against the Whites of Texas who had supported Slavery during the Civil War. The Texas State Police was in turn replaced by what was called the Texas Rangers in 1873 as the Democrats (which was made up of mostly people who had supported the South in the Civil War) won control of the State Legislature (Many of the Old Texas State Police were kept on, but the leadership was replaced by people who supported discrimination against African Americans and Americans of Mexican descent. The Texas Rangers (and its predecessor the Texas State Police) are generally NOT considered what we call State Police today. The main reason is the main focus of both the Texas State Police (1871-1873) and the Texas Rangers (1873-1901) was the as a Military unit NOT as a Police force, i.e. fighting as a unit as oppose to acting on their own to go after criminals.
In 1901 the Rangers were reorganized, technically to make them more a Police Force, but this failed within a decade due to the outbreak of the Mexican Revolution, which lead to them returning in a pseudo military formation NOT a Law Enforcement Formation AND a massive enlargement in size (and they is strong evidence that the reforms never took hold, the Rangers continued as a Military Unit during this time period). The quick enlargement in size, and a return to its traditional role as a pseudo-military organization, lead to several mass killings of Mexicans and the scandals those massacres created. In 1919, due these scandals, the Texas Rangers were reorganized, again, back to what was proposed in 1901 (But retaining the tradition that all were appointed and served at the pleasure of the Governor). In 1932, the Rangers supported the wrong Democrat for Governor, and when the candidate they had opposed won, all the Rangers were fired. In 1935 the Rangers were again re-formed, but this time as a Civil Service Police Force (like the Pennsylvania State Police) and since that time has been a professional state police force. Thus the modern Texas Rangers only trace their history to 1935, but they retain the name of two earlier more Military organizations.
More on the Texas Rangers:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Texas_Ranger_Division
Side Note #4: Through the relationship between New England and the East India Company is unclear, technically the East India company, except for the tea ship attacked in the Boston Tea Party, had no right to make any trips to the New World. On the other hand, the currents in the Atlantic is from the Slave/Gold Coast of Africa to the Caribbean, then along the Gulf stream as it flows past the American East Coast then to England. In many ways, due to the currents, it is as fast, if not faster to go from India to Africa to New England, then England, then to go from Africa to England. Thus it is possible, if not probable that the East India Company sent it ships to New England for retrofits, then to England, New England is on the way to England from India. This would explain why the Flag of the East India Company, 13 Stripes with a Union Jack in the upper left corner, is also called the "Grand Union Flag". No first hand report of it actually being flown by Washington, but often claim that it was (The only report can be interpreted two ways, as for something like the Grand Union Flag OR the British Union Jack, given that the British on seeing it at first assumed it was a sign of surrender, I lean to a British Union Jack for the US had NOT yet decided to go for independence).
The other reports of use of the "Grand Union Flay" could be a cover story, to explain why the flag was seen in New England during the American Revolution (i.e. flown by East India Company Ships, which continued to do illegal trade with New England even as England and the United States were at war). Being illegal, no records. Given the power of the East India Company, the British Army and Navy that controlled New York City 1776-1783 may have thought it as better to ignore then to fight, given the trade was with New England, the area of the Untied States even the British considered most pro-independence.
On the other hand, during the War of 1812, when the British decided to blockade the United States, they started in Georgia and worked they way up the coast. The reason for this was simple, the Duke of Wellington in 1812-1814 was still fighting the French in Spain. The Duke wanted a secure source of wheat for his men. That source was New England. Thus, even during the War of 1812, American Ships full of wheat would leave various New England ports, be intercepted off the coast by British Frigates and then escorted to Spain and back to New England. This is considered the start of America's love affair with wheat, prior to Wellington's Spanish campaign, even New England first choice of food was Corn. This could be a continuation of a possible exchange of goods between New England and the East India Company, or something new, I lean to it being a continuation, given that Wellington served in India for the East India Company from 1796 to 1806 and then went back home to England and then to Spain.
More on the East India Company:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_India_Company
Duke of Wellington:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Wellesley,_1st_Duke_of_Wellington
= new reply since forum marked as read
