The statement is not obvious and that's why they have the supreme court.You do not need a law degree to read and understand what the constitution says.This is a pretty obvious amendment - The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
The right of people to be secure ect--It is left up to interpretation what constitutes secure.
against unreasonable searches and seizures -- Does not state what is or isn't unreasonable.
but upon probable cause-- Again doesnt state what does or doesnt constitute probable cause.
and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized-- further clarity could be needed stating that placing a GPS is a violation because tracking someone is not the same searching or seizing.
I agree completely with the decision they reached. I am responding mostly to your statement that "You do not need a law degree to read and understand what the constitution says.This is a pretty obvious amendment". Much of our constitution, and many of our laws, ammendments, ect are very vaguely worded and subject to interpetation. Nothing is clear or obvious.