If they seized the drugs and didn't try and deliver them they would have tipped people off without creating any solid tie between the drugs and their suspects. They might as well have seized the drugs and made an announcement that they had them and that the bad criminals should quit dealing in drugs.
And let's not forget the lying in an attempt to cover this up.
I've seen evidence of some bad media coverage and possibly a police spokesman that made comments without knowing all the facts while scrambling in the face of bad press.
It makes no real sense that they would lie about the nature of the warrant because the truth is bound to come out. These officers have to be familiar with having to testify in court about such things and would know lies would come back to bite them.
It's not unusual for the story to be a bit muddled in such a situation because the spokesmen make assumptions when pressed for answers rather than waiting to get all the details and then providing clear, correct answers.
That's actually the perfect approach for this situation. In cases like these, where the "addressee" is an uninovled bystander, it avoids harming or even inconveniencing innocent people. If the addressee were actually involved in the drug trade, then he'd be out $100,000 worth of mechandise and thereby big-red-capital-Superman-"S" screwed when his supplier comes asking for his cut of the proceeds.
LOL. By that "logic", Bill Clinton must be innoncent of perjury -- it made no real sense for him to lie because the truth was bound to come out, ergo, he did not in fact lie.