My understanding is they have to have ‘exigent circumstances’ to search without a warrant. The defences argument is they lacked ‘exigent circumstances’ (no immediate risk of him getting it and no fear it contained a bomb or any such other device) and by not getting a warrant (which they had all the time in the world to do so) violated his rights.
Officers can articulate why they needed to search immediately however it sounds like their story isn’t holding water.
The officer who searched claimed she thought a bomb was in it. The defence lawyers argue thats a lie as why didn’t she call in a bomb squad, evacuate the area, etc. if she truly felt there was a risk.
Interesting case to follow, it would be wild if the case fell apart not because he didn’t or did do it, rather the police dropped the ball.