I'm not sure I undertstand the courts argument. I guess you're saying that the disproportionately republican justices would be more amenable to a civil liberties reading of the law. But in fact the truth is the opposite: conservative courts have a long and very consistent history of being very friendly to police powers.
I think the argument is that lower courts are supposed to follow the rulings from higher courts, either due to precedent or just consistency. Lower courts can be hesitant to rule on novel cases, and seem to side with 'guilty until proven otherwise' instead of 'innocent until proven guilty' when these technicalities come along.
I feel like you are partially right about conservative judges. I do think they tend to be more 'tough on crime', especially at lower levels. But it also seems that at the higher courts they tend to apply the law as it was written. In this case, if it is applied as written, then the defendant would be dismissed or not guilty.
I don't know. Based on my recent experiences, the system is a sham.
