Well, your agreement or disagreement won't change the outcome of what took place in this case, or any future one where exigent circumstances (hot pursuit) takes place.
This is not the first time such pursuit has taken place, and it won't be the last.
Bottom line, it's constitutional, it's legal, it'll take place again in the future. People won't like it, but they have little recourse to 'the law' - as it is already deemed 'in their favor.'
Actually, they may, as could the agreement or disagreement of others on FR. As jurors, we would have the authority and the duty to nullify government actions in an illegal search, even if the judge failed to exercise his responsibility to do so.
This was not "hot pursuit" as recognized by the Supreme Court, it was not based upon the need to circumvent the destruction of evidence, or the need to prevent the loss of life or serious injury. If you read Warden v. Hayden, 387 U.S. 294, United States v. Santana, 427 U.S. 38, United States v. Lopez, 989 F.2d 24 (1st Cir. 1993), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 872, 114 S. Ct. 201, 126 L. Ed. 2d 158 [1993]); and United States v. Sewell, 942 F.2d 1209 [7th Cir. 1991], the situations in which hot pursuit exceptions apply require a specific knowledge of a specific threat or crime in a specific location. The general search of Boston, or even Watertown, is nowhere near the strict limits for warrantless searches as prescribed by the courts. Police were not told that an armed robber had entered a specific home, the police did not see the suspect entering a specific home, nor did they observe a crime in progress inside these specific homes - other than their own unlawful entry. There were no exigent circumstances.
If we do not speak up today, those in government who consider the Constitution an inconvenience are more likely to repeat this excess, and we are more likely to be the victims tomorrow. If we do not know our rights, we are more likely to defer to the presumed greater understanding of lawyers who may deceive us in court on whether these searches were justified. Violations of the Constitution are almost never justified, and this is one of the typical cases in which the Constitutional was violated, one in which the excuse is grossly insufficient.