“At the heart of debates like this is a court policy which is called the exclusionary rule”
You might want to read up on the exclusionary rule. It was a court opinion, not found in the US Constitution, and it does not work the way you want it to work.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/exclusionary_rule
And if cops could only stop someone when they had total certainty of guilt, and applying the law in such a way that no future court would interpret it differently, then yes - we would have effectively ceased having any law enforcement. I’ve read more than enough court cases to realize courts often interpret plainly written laws in ways no reasonable person would. Here in Arizona, it has been common for the legislature to re-write laws after the state supreme court found a way to mangle the plain meaning of a law and toss it out.
If you want to see courts mangle plainly written laws, read some tort law cases.
And yet would the consequences be anywhere close to as dire as you say?
The consequence is to clear the pipeline. Not to hang the police And it can only happen if a law was misconstrued so as to “call black white.”
How often does that happen? Truly?
It sounds like you are the one being unreasonable here, in any sense of the word.
And this is not about some arbitrary “future court” as if we could go to 3000 AD or something and wreak damage on what happened a thousand years back. One more strawman enters your implications. It’s about courts that govern the situation at hand. The fact that you even imply the state court would re-reverse the ruling means that you DO know it applies.
Strip your view of strawmen and it might be worthy of consideration. Otherwise please don’t bother.