Article from The Daily Wire by Ashe Schow.

The three-judge appellate court, which consists of two judges appointed by President Donald Trump and one by former President Bill Clinton, concluded that the government had enough probable cause to obtain a search warrant even without the illegal evidence:

All agree: the DEA entry team entered Huskisson’s house unlawfully. We do not condone this illegal behavior by law enforcement; the better practice is to obtain a warrant before entering a home. Ordinarily, the evidence found here would be excluded. But because the government had so much other evidence of probable cause, and had already planned to apply for a warrant before the illegal entry, the evidence is admissible. Though the government should not profit from its bad behavior, neither should it be placed in a worse position than it would otherwise have occupied.

Attorney Marcus L. Schantz, replying to a tweet from USA Today editor Brad Heath, explained the problems with this decision:

SCOTUS needs to weigh in on this. The logical extension of that holding is that police can enter a home willy nilly and get the warrant later. No. No. No. No. A judge or magistrate decides if the police can enter, and there’s no guarantee the warrant will be approved.

Read the entire article at The Daily Wire.