Yeah, I think I agree. My main original point wasn't simply that the accused parallel case was logical, but that it was more logical than any other case even if we assume illegal evidence was involved.

This is as opposed to say a police officer pulling over a drug dealer's car full drugs for failing to use a turn signal. If we assume illegal evidence was involved there, it's most logical the police were given some heads-up that there would be a drug dealer with a car full of drugs in the area to pull over, and the failing to signal on a turn was just used as a convenient excuse.