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 wa

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.