As much as I support the rule of law, there's no way I can interpret that as benefiting mankind in any way.
If the police was sure he deserved it and had the evidence to prove it, they should've just gotten the warrant. If they weren't, then they were just fishing and waiting for someone co commit a crime. And that's not just immoral, but against the Constitution.
That's what they are doing, this is how jurisprudence works.
Hadn't they challenged the warantless spying, it would have made a precedent in court. The police could have relied on the acceptance of the evidence in this case to do it again, anywhere in the US.
What good does a warrant system do if the government doesn't follow the law? Trials like this are how courts get the executive arms of the government to follow the law. You'll notice that the presiding judge actively solicited a brief from the EFF.
Really? Can you really not see the broad benefit to society of teaching the authorities that they must obey the law?
Of course, if you are the NSA and aren't charging anyone with any crimes, you don't have to worry about suppression hearings and the judge who issued it can never have that decision appealed like they could in a civilian court...
A co-worker who was on law school explained these rules are to make sure an innocent person is never found guilty, even if that means letting criminals walk.