Agreed, but what exactly are 'vital protections to criminals'? Is it a game where there are fair and unfair ways to catch mass murderers? 'Vital protections to suspected criminals' makes sense to me, but 'vital protections' to criminals does not. I think I might be splitting hairs here.
Any protections given to suspected criminals who are not yet convicted will also be given to real criminals who haven't yet been convicted.
Further, I would suggest that if the police are allowed to bend the rules against those who are 'probably' guilty, that will open the door for them to bend the rules against those against whom the case is 'probably' as strong as those who were 'probably' guilty, etc. until the police feel free to bend the rules against practically anyone.
BTW, one law I'd like to see states pass to re-add some teeth to the Fourteenth Amendment would be one creating a presumption that someone who shot a cop who was carrying out a no-knock raid did so in self-defense. Such a person could still be prosecuted if the state could prove either that the defendant's actions showed beyond doubt that he knew the attackers were police, or that there is no way a reasonable person could have believed the attackers were anything other than police. To prove the latter, the state would have to prove among other things that the defendant could not have believed the attackers to be some crooks with phony uniforms.
While no-knock raids are occasionally necessary (e.g. for hostage rescue) most of them serve only to impose terror on the citizenry while endangering everybody. If cops act like criminals, they should expect to be shot like criminals. If cops don't want to get shot, they should act like peace officers rather than thugs.