We may misinterpret the case and try to compare it to SWAT issues in America, but those are radically different in terms of legal aspects.
Excuse me pepsionice but you are full of sh**. The ruling was that NO ONE has the right to resist an unlawful entry by police and they also said that the 4th amendment is obsolete because we can now sue the cops after the fact.
This case wasn't about if the wife gave permission or not, if that was true the ruling would have read something like, "we find the police had probable cause and also permission of one of the owners of the property to enter". That is not how the ruling went.
The justices totally ignored the fact that some house breakers wear cops suits and yell police when they break down the door in order to forestall any resistance. If cops enter unlawfully they are no better than any other person who is breaking and entering. This ruling is totally unconstitutional and is based on the idea of a "living constitution" which is open to interpretation which is a false assumption.
The problem is this is a decision that might make some sense in Sharia law but not in America. The fact that the judge who wrote the decision had more than his fair share of contact with proponents of Sharia law is troublesome in the extreme.