So, "not tipping off their search" is more important than respecting civil liberties?? The presumption is "innocent until PROVEN guilty". The police "raid, raid, raid" mentality is one of the biggest travesties foisted on us by the "war on some drugs"--the biggest is "civil forfeiture". It is NOT sufficient to perform such activities based on informant statements alone---more probable cause should be needed.
That is the place of the judge that offers/denys search warrents. Without one, they have NO rights whatsoever to search the property. These police followed the correct procedure. The judge is the one that determines if there is enough evidence to enact a search warrent, not the police. Do I think police need to knock on the door of each person that they plan to search and say "hey, we are going to eat a donut in the car but we will be back in three hours to search your house if that is ok with you", then the answer is no. If you don't understand why, then you are unworthy of me investing any more time in debate with you. There is a reason the element of surprise turns up more reliable evidence than the other method. I don't think a school bus driving dope smoker would have submitted to a search in the first case. Do you? Do you really think that the pot would of not of been flushed if they were given time?
I can imagine all the Meth dealers that would love to have your property rights rules. They could do what they want on their property and only get busted if they left their santuary of home. If they could get the people to just enter their homes to buy the drugs, they could never be found guilty. No one could enter their property to obtain any evidence.