Here's the text of the 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."
Note that it says that right of people to be secure is against unreasoanble searches - it doesn't say that any warrantless search is unreasonable. The second part describes how a warrants have to be issued when they are issued.
Much like the comma in 2A, it can be argued what the actual intent of 4A is - though I think the argument in favor of reading this as two separate clauses is stronger here, both from the wording, and in light of historical applications. For example, to the best of my knowledge, no-one has argued that 4A made it impossible for officers of law to enter premises without a warrant in hot pursuit, while chasing a criminal. If you accept that such is legal, then clearly not any "reasonable search and seizure" requires a warrant. OTOH, once you admit an exception like that, it kinda snowballs from there, so now we have a very complicated set of rules and exceptions defining what is reasonable and what isn't - and they are certainly not common sense.
Either way, the standing legal interpretation (as defined by various SCOTUS decisions) is the one which treats the two clauses of 4A as separate, and so warrantless searches are deemed legal in some circumstances. Furthermore, they have decreed that dog sniffing around the car is not a search at all, and therefore 4A does not apply. You can disagree, but if it comes to court, this is the standard by which you will be judged.