I would say no, for several reasons:

Ray of Frost on the PFSRD.

1. Ray of Frost does not freeze things, by RAW. There are spells that specifically say that they cause certain elemental effects (for example, Fireball specifically says that it "sets fire to combustibles") but Ray of Frost is not one of them. While it might be able to cool water or make a very small amount of ice, I doubt that Ray of Frost would be able to freeze enough water fast enough to break a lock.

2. Actually making the water stay in the lock is non-trivial. If you have some way of keeping the water from spilling out of the keyholes, then this isn't as much of a problem, but I don't think much water will actually stay in the lock after you've poured it in.

3. From a balance perspective, allowing an easy way to break open nonmagical, traditional locks using two 0-level spells is kind of cheesy, and Knock is 2nd level. I might be comfortable with players using a 1st level spell creatively this way, and definitely if they can creatively use a 2nd level spell for this kind of effect, but I think that using 0-level spells for a 2nd level effect is pushing it. I realize that Knock does more than just open nonmagical locks, but there isn't anything below 2nd level that can open locks, so I feel like that's a good baseline for this effect.

4. I'm not sure this would actually work, at least not in a reasonable amount of time. While you could certainly make a lock stop working by freezing water in it, breaking the lock entirely requires much more pressure than ice can reasonably exert. I find it more likely that the iron or steel that most locks are made of would just force the ice out of the keyholes or into other open areas rather than break. In the related Mythbusters episode, it required liquid nitrogen (which is likely much colder than a 0-level spell), and it still needed an impact to break the lock.

5. This is much more situational, but some doors (especially doors designed for security) don't open just because the locking mechanism is broken. If a door has a deadbolt attached to the lock, then breaking the lock won't let you open the door anyway. And if this trick works in a particular world, then it's very likely that locksmiths will adapt to this technique, and make locks that stay locked after being broken.

The rules imply that objects have two different "modes" of existence. They can be independent objects, subject to targeting and damage from area-effect spells. Or, if carried by a character, they become "attributes" or "parts" of that character, and no more subject to specific damage than, say, the character's ears. These are not mutually exclusive - an object can be carried by a character and still be targeted by a spell or action. But they cannot be both at once in the context of a single action.

Note that it is the attacker, not the character, that determines which "mode" applies. The attacker indicates this by specifying what he is "targeting".

In the OP example, the objects carried by the victim would not be subject to the spell effects unless either 1) the caster targeted the specific item or 2) the spell specifically indicates that carried items are affected.

For Banishment (or Shove), since the carried items were not specifically targeted, they are considered to be part of the character and are banished with the character. There is nothing weird about this. After all, hair is nothing more than dead keratin that happens to still be attached to the skin, yet we would consider it even weirder if Banishment left the victim with a bald pate and silky-smooth legs. We intuitively understand that a character is more than just his living tissue, and the game makes no distinction between items that are carried in a pouch, gripped tightly in the hand, or attached like hair to the body.

The Pinocchio Paradox

There is one strange glitch in the game's handling of objects which I call the "Pinocchio Paradox". Suppose Geppetto is playing with his marionette when his archenemy strikes him with an area-effect spell. The puppet, being "carried" by Geppetto, is unharmed. On the next turn, the Blue Fairy turns the puppet into a real boy, and then Geppetto is struck with the same area-effect spell. This time, Pinocchio is caught in the spell and takes damage.

Although at first this seems like a hole in the rules, it really isn't. The essential distinction between the puppet and the boy is that the boy can take independent action. Damage in the game is only recorded when it has a game effect - that is, it affects the types of actions possible and the probability of specific results. On the first round, of course the puppet was damaged in the colloquial sense - the DM might describe the charring of the wood or the tangling of the strings - but that damage has no impact on combat and therefore is not recorded. On the second round, the damage done to the boy does have an impact on combat, as the boy has the potential for independent action which he may or may not now be able to (or wish to) take advantage of.

You can further imagine that the puppet could be magically (or mechanically) animated to make the situation seem even more paradoxical, but the rule for resolving it does not change. You can also consider the opposite paradox - is a baby being carried count as an object or a character? There is a simple test for these situations - is the object (potentially) capable of taking Actions and is therefore a "character"? If not, any damage (unless the object is specifically targeted) is considered cosmetic and for simplicity's sake is not recorded.