I think the full reasoning here is something like

1. It was unclear if a warrant was necessary

2. Any judge would have given a warrant

3. You didn't get a warrant

4. A warrant was actually required.

Thus, it's not clear that any harm was caused because the right wasn't clearly enshrined and had the police known that it was, they likely would have followed the correct process. There was no intention to violate rights, and no advantage gained from even the inadvertent violation of rights. But the process is updated for the future.

Yeah that is about my understanding as well.

I don't care nearly as much about the 4th amendment when the person is guilty. I care a lot when the person is innocent. Searches of innocent people is costly for the innocent person and so we require warrants to ensure such searches are minimized (even though most warrants are approved, the act of getting on forces the police to be careful). If a search was completely not costly to innocent I wouldn't be against them, but there are many ways a search that finds nothing is costly to the innocent.

If the average person is illegally searched, but turns out to be innocent, what are the chances they bother to take the police to court? It's not like they're going to be jailed or convicted, so many people would prefer to just try to move on with their life rather than spend thousands of dollars litigating a case in the hopes of a payout that could easily be denied if the judge decides the cops were too stupid to understand the law rather than maliciously breaking it.

Because of that, precedent is largely going to be set with guilty parties, but will apply equally to violations of the rights of the innocent.

There is the important question.

I want guilty people to go free if their 4th amendment rights are violated, thats the only way to ensure police are meticulous about protecting peoples rights

It doesn’t seem like it was wrong in this specific case however.