You are somewhat correct in that normally. However, there is a way of getting around that in some cases. If it is expedient or exigent circumstances where the evidence may be destroyed or disappear, a warrant-less search and seizure is valid. I don't know the details in this case, but just thought I would throw in my two cents. Years ago, a court found that IF there was good cause to believe that the evidence would have been revealed eventually during the investigation, the lack of a proper warrant was not tantamount to fruit of the poisonous tree. None of what I said may be relevant to this case. Just saying.