Just because you hate Google doesn't mean that the warrant is invalid or the search is unreasonable here.
Jussie may have committed a crime. They have the right to investigate.
Never mind that that Amendment technically has nada to do with this, because technically speaking, 4th Amendment for the person in question stopped applying due to Third Party Doctrine.
This is purely a procedural issue between Google and the government.
Read that and take it in for a minute. You're only as secure in information about yourself as you can say that you alone are the chief facilitator of your day-to-day activity, and that where you aren't, those who are hold government to the proper standard of access.
Furthermore, I"m fairly sure that Google has far more detailed information hoovered up with regards to everyday people than they wish to go on the public record as having. If this were a fishing expedition, and they handed over replication tracks for 2 months for instance. That would become verified public knowledge that they collect that information, and store it in queryable form.
Google is acting very shrewdly to disclose as little about their true data collection capabilities as possible. Likely because of the backlash that would occur if people were aware of just what they were sitting on.
There was a Jeffrey Deaver book that somewhat touched on the dangers of sitting on reams of correlable data, even if measures were in place to ensure none could be written down or physically exfiltrated from the building. The Broken Window I believe it was.
Either way, it should disturb everyone that the government has essentially got a one-stop-shop for just about all the detail about what you're thinking about, all enabled thanks to the requisite tracking for ad targeting.
Heck, If I had more spare time, I'd start building my own search indexer. The balance between personal privacy and government access to reams of metadata about your every day life can't be reconciled with Third Party Doctrine. Period.
US courts have pretty consistently ruled that you don't have much expectation of privacy for material you handed over to someone else. To the extent that its usually available with just an administrative subpoena.
Skipping all forms of due process is probably a step too far-- but a direct court order? After all, if Google can commercially exploit your data including handing it over to partners-- why should a court order result in less access?
https://tresorit.com/, for example, may be a useful litmus test to monitor for this use case. They've had to implement soft deletion because "The option to recover files has been among the top feature requests we’ve heard from our users and customers" (https://tresorit.com/blog/file-restore-launch/).
There are foot-gun manufacturers if people want an alternative.
The question is not why Google has your data, it's why you chose to continue using Google despite the awareness of such a scenario happening. As someone else commented, this article should be circulated far and wide, and people need to be educated on privacy friendly alternatives like ProtonMail.
Lastly, the courts and law enforcement are a problem if they knowingly overreach their limits. Protections against unlawful search and seizure and right to privacy are guaranteed by the Constitution