As are the judges who allow this to happen in the first place. If a judge wanted to abide by the Constitution, he would allow defendants to have factual matters related to the reasonableness and legitimacy of searches put before the jury, and instruct the jury that they should not construe against the defendant any evidence gathered in a search if:
- The cops executing the search did not do so in a reasonable fashion, making a good faith effort to minimize risk and harm to persons and property.
- The cops used a warrant which obtained by use of something other than a good-faith presentation of probable cause to believe that a crime had been committed and that the requested search would produce evidence of such crime, backed by the testimony of someone with personal knowledge supporting that fact.
- The cops did not have a legitimate warrant in their possession, and did not have a good faith belief that both (1) if they presented their case before a judge, a warrant would be approved, and (2) the evidence they sought to collect would be destroyed or spoiled by the time a warrant could be obtained.
- The cops did not make a good faith effort to describe what they actually expected or sought to find.
In many cases, juries will consider evidence that they really shouldn't, if such evidence would prove the defendant guilty of heinous crimes. On the other hand, some police "searches" are far more heinous than the crimes of which their victims stand accused, and jurors would be unlikely to convict someone who posed less of a danger to society than the police who seek to prosecute him.