Not that scary since the "violation of the 4th" isn't that "blatant". First, you got it a little wrong. It was the Magistrate and the District Court who denied the defendant's motion because the violation of the 4th was minor. IANAL, but based on the fact that there's a Latin phrase for us to use in those cases, it must not be that out of the ordinary. Laws aren't as black and white as most citizens seem to think they are, and in some cases the severity of the offense or some other condition might outweigh a minor constitutional violation, especially if the officer wasn't knowingly and deliberately violating the Constitution. I would bet that if, instead of a small amount of drugs, a body or kidnapped child in the trunk had been found, the Supreme Court would have upheld the District Court's decision. In this case, the dissent was actually because an extra 7 or 8 minutes for a total length of 29 minutes wasn't an unreasonable amount of time for a traffic stop even though the officer had already finished his traffic violation related activities and therefore wasn't a violation of the 4th amendment at all. They basically said that the majority opinion makes the law different if the officer pulling you over is more efficient than another officer with less experience or less advanced tools. From a dissenting opinion, "I “cannot accept that the search and seizure protections of the Fourth Amendment are so variable and can be made to turn upon such trivialities.” Whren, 517 U. S., at 815."
I would really recommend reading Justice Thomas's opinion. It was very interesting and, if you aren't dead set on believing the entire legal system is out to get you, I think you'll at least agree that he might have a valid argument even if you ultimately still disagree with it.