I support the decision made by the U. S. Supreme Court in the case of Weeks v. United States in that, the Supreme Court was right in ruling that there was an error in the trial court's judgment because basically the trial court's judgment stated that it does not matter how the evidence was obtained, it was admissable in court.  The manner in which the evidence was obtained violates the defendant's constitutional rights; therefore, the evidence should not have been admissable in court. (Weeks v. United States, 1914)  The police could have used the following beliefs to apply for a search warrant; they could have said that there was probable cause in that there would very possibly be stolen lottery tickets, or papers revealing evidence of the illegal sale of lottery tickets.  This would have given them reason to file for a search warrant.  The warrant would most likely have been issued on these beliefs. (Weeks v. United States, 1914)  I do not see any other way the officers could have entered Week's residence other than forcing their way in.  I think this would have raised more issues concerning the defendant's constitutional rights.  The officers could very well have lied about the circumstances, only they know.  I think the legal requirements for an officer for telling the truth are the same regardless of the circumstances, officers should tell the truth at all times (Lushbaugh, 2012,pp.17-35)
References:
Lushbaugh, C. A. (2012. Criminal Investigation: Basic Perspectives, Twelfth Edition. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education
Weeks v. United States, 232 &. S. 383(1914)(U. S. Supreme Court Feb 14, 1914)