The real root of this sort of issue is how the courts treat the standard of probable cause. It's supposed to be that the evidence presented is proof of a crime (but not as far as beyond reasonable doubt, but just that the 1 sided evidence supports it). Instead they often use the lower standard of reasonable suspicion.

As an example, a bag of white powder cannot meet the standard of probable cause by itself. Maybe if the person holding it had a record of trafficking, or something like that. If the instant tests have a 90%+ accuracy rate, then that should be enough for a warrant to seize and test the substance with an high accuracy test. But I would contend that without other evidence it shouldn't be enough for a custodial arrest.

But none of this really matters because the judges are not impartial. They want to think of themselves as good guys, and they think of the cops as good guys. So of course they automatically side with the cops. Or as we in civil things like red flag laws, they generally ignore the "more likely than not" standard to "err on the side of caution" by issuing them almost by default. Absolutely insane that they get away with this, especially the ones who admit it.