What this ridiculous case shows so clearly is that the police just can't help themselves - as a group, they are seemingly incapable of making a distinction between national security and theft of deep-fried poultry.
In the real world, where most of us live, if you abuse your privileges then they get taken away. If your boss if lenient and doesn't require a doctor's certificate when you take sick leave but then finds out that you called in sick to go to the beach or to recover from a hangover, then you are likely to see the requirements change.
Surely the police should see that the more they abuse these powers on minor crimes, the more they risk having them restricted or more tightly controlled - as identified in the article - or even, in extreme cases, removed altogether. (Requiring, for example, a direct request to the FBI to carry out the surveillance.)
That the police - again, as a group - appear not to care about such an eventuality, suggests that they believe they can to do whatever they what, whenever they want with little to no repercussion and that the government will support them however brazen they are.
Unfortunately, with only a few exceptions, they appear to be right.