Except that's not what the courts decided:
Up above someone mentioned Heller vs DC, but before that in "United
States v. Verdugo-Urquidez" it was also decided "the people" meant "persons who are part of a national community". Heller further expanded upon that to mean "all members of the political community."

In both cases, this was not just a group but also the individuals of said group. If it only meant a group then no individual would have the right to peacefully assemble, only groups.
1st amendment: "right of the people peaceably to assemble"

Same would be true to be free from unlawful searches. If "the people" only meant a group then no single individual would have that protection as laid out in the 4th amendment.
4th 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"

I think Heller had a big change for the understanding of the 2nd but it also cleared up a lot of risky grey area on how people can interpret the 1st and 4th too, which is what makes it such an interesting case to look at. If "the people" was an amalgam of many individuals then States could argue that so long as they don't unlawfully search 'all' or 'most' people, unreasonably, then they can do so for individuals since they don't represent "the people".