This is not the case and it is called the "good faith" exception. The police officers when acting in good faith under a warrant that is latter found to invalid does not make the evidence inadmissible.
Given this do you now believe there is good reason to fight back against unreasonable warrants?
The whole point to the 'good faith' exception to the 'exclusionary rule' is that in such a case, the detective had complied with the Fourth Amendment, the issued warrant passed some "smell tests", etc. Therefore it doesn't make sense to automatically "punish" the government (and society) and let people go free under the 'fruit of the poisonous tree' principle, since law enforcement wasn't the one at fault in that scenario, but rather the judge who issued the warrant.
However, the 'good faith' exception is a possibility, not a mandate. The appellate judge can certainly decide that the evidence obtained under a warrant which is later deemed inadmissible should be excluded completely. All that the 'good faith' exception means is that the appellate judge doesn't have to exclude all that evidence; rather they can exclude what they deem essential toward meeting the interests of overall justice and fairness before remanding the case back to trial.
Either way, fighting back against "unreasonable warrants" is almost axiomatically a good idea; I don't think anyone wants "unreasonable warrants" floating around in the justice system. I find it hard to feel too bad for people who really committed a serious crime and left evidence to that effect though. The Bill of Rights is designed to protect the innocent from the government; that it also gives shielding to the guilty is the price that society has to pay, but that doesn't mean you should rely on such a shield being present if you commit a crime :P.
I find nothing unreasonable about the warrant here.
Challenged does not mean 'prevent'ed it can be argued later as a matter of law that the warrant should not have been issued, and that the evidence acquired as a result is inadmissible. Courts do not have to give defendants the benefit of the doubt in matters of evidence collection because a) procedures exist to challenge the admission of that evidence at trial and b) it's a sad but true fact that a lot of people do in fact attempt to destroy evidence; where they have both motive and capacity to do so, seizure is justifiable. Spoliation (the legal term for destruction of evidence) is a big problem in litigation.