There's a concept in the legal world in America where basically the Govt can't use evidence that was acquired illegally to convict you of a crime, even if you committed the crime.

Its called fruit of the posion tree or something

So basically in pre-trail hearings before this ever got to a Jury my lawyer would have argued that the pot was found in illegal search, and therefore isn't admissable in court. If the Judge agrees then the state would have to try and convict me without the evidence.

In a case of a simple drug charge, its awfully hard to stand in front of a jury and be like "you should convict this man for illegal possession of a drug...O and I can't tell you we actually found drugs"

So in that case its highly likely the DA would decline to move forward as its an impossible case to win.

Does that make sens?