As long as it's for a reasonable purpose, what's wrong with unreasonable searches right?  That's what the Journal Editorial Board thinks at least:

Conducting random searches of certain people's homes should make people a little uncomfortable. Such searches are intrusive and heavy-handed. But given the prevalence of crime in our communities and the deterrence value of searching, maybe being a little uncomfortable is the price we have to pay.
...
We understand the civil liberties arguments against random searches, and no one wants too much government intrusion in private lives. But this kind of searching is not too much. It is, in Van Hulle's words, simply "reasonable and practical."

Are you outraged yet?  Good.  Of course, the editorial is actually about random drug testing in schools (the italicized words are the ones I replaced).  But what is the difference?  If people can use those excuses to institute random drug testing in schools simply because it is deemed "reasonable and practical", then what makes you think they won't come into your home next?  The excuses are the same.  If they are allowed to bypass the 4th Amendment for this, then you will be next.  The precedent will be set.