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.
Indeed, and LE had just that, and a whole lot more. They knew the perp was afoot, they followed a trail of blood drops. They knew he was wounded, losing lots of blood, and was seeking a place to hide. He was a specific and very big threat to anyone in the direction he was traveling afoot. Their biggest fear, he would find or commandeer a vehicle... hence a complete lockdown of all streets in a area around where the trail of blood led them - and their determination to thoroughly search every building within the parameters of where they thought he could be.
As it turned out - their perimeters were off - he was a block and a half outside those perimeters. They didn't find him - a homeowner did. It is that homeowner that deserves greater recognition than all the LEO's put together.
Read the law - they had legal warrant to do what they did. And yes, from what I saw, they did a pretty crappy job of it - but they were operating within the law, although in many instances far to broadly, imho.
If anyone wants to blow 150 million in lawsuits, or more, they might gain some pittance of monetary compensation years from now - that MA citizens would have to cough up.