I don't understand the implications of the ruling. I never understood why evidence can be thrown out because it wasn't obtained properly, assuming a real crime occurred and not one of the state's many mala prohibita. If proper procedure wasn't followed, and the suspect did not actually do anything wrong, then the cop should be fired and possibly punished for a civil rights violation.
"The point of the Fourth Amendment, which often is not grasped by zealous officers, is not that it denies law enforcement the support of the usual inferences which reasonable men draw from evidence. Its protection consists in requiring that those inferences be drawn by a neutral and detached magistrate instead of being judged by the officer engaged in the often competitive enterprise of ferreting out crime." Johnson v US 1948.
I found it a few years ago at one of my favorite websites:
http://www.fourthamendment.com/blog/
There are a few angles on suppression of government evidence.
From one angle, you could say the court gets to make its own determination whether its willing to go along with violations of the constitution. If a judge felt it was unfair to introduce evidence obtained in violation of the 4A, I can't really see compelling him to go along with the violation. In which his remedies might be a little limited. He could throw out the whole case. Or, he could refuse to allow the just evidence that violated the 4A.
Personally, given the rate at which courts have been finding "loopholes" in the 4A, I don't think the latter is all that much of a concern. My suspicion would tend more towards government knowing full well the revolutionary spirit in America was fed heartily by suspicionless general warrants by the kings agents. The courts aren't willing to create a firestorm by eating away the whole 4A at once.
But, the most important angle is "who is the correct target?" Supermoderator Mike pointed this out a few years ago. The correct target is not the judges who suppress evidence or let off crooks on "technicalities." The correct targets are the cops and prosecutors who didn't play by the rules. If a judge lets a genuine crook off on a techicality, that's what he's supposed to do. It was the police or prosecutor who violated 4A, due process, etc, who let that criminal off.
Those "technicalities" are your rights. Your Fourth Amendment right. Your right against self-incrimination. Your due process rights.