I see that your oaths didn’t help you support your argument with logic - only scorn.
I think Scalia has it wrong.
The only way this arrest should stand is if the police have a spotless track record for correctness and compliance with law. That cat left the bad years ago. Because a ruling affirming the cops’ actions is so very ripe for abuse, I believe that the need for a warrant correctly identifying the home to be searched (as in: actually targeting the residence they invaded) is necessary. To allow a warrantless search based on an odor and “sounds” is a very subjective standing - one which would be patently below the bar for getting a warrant.
Based on experience, I can’t see giving the police unlimited power to circumvent the fourth amendment, based on the reaction to their prior illegal stop.
Rephrasing the issue, allow me to ask you a direct question. If a policeman stops a motorist without a valid reason, smells pot, performs a search and finds pot, resulting in an arrest, do you believe that the evidence should be thrown out because the policeman had no reason to stop the car in the first place?
If you disagree the evidence should be suppressed because the initial contact with police was illegal, I believe a ton of legal precedent is against you.
If you agree the evidence should be suppressed, why do you believe that the auto is more sacrosanct than the home?
Lulz! Wut?
Do you know what the standard for probable cause is? Probable cause is not a high bar, the Founders never intended it to be. The standard for probable cause is far less than "preponderance of the evidence" (50%+1).