The problem here, as I see it, is this: the police had no reason to detain these men in the first place. They were investigating a wholly separate crime---they weren't patrolling the area on the lookout for drug dealers. They had no probable cause to detain these men on suspicion of the crime they were investigating, so that detention was unjustified. Anything the police discovered as a result of that detention would never have been known or realized had not that detention taken place, and since that detention was unjustified, it's as if the evidence against them never existed.
And this is the way it should be. Otherwise, the police would have carte blanche to stop anyone, for any reason, absent suspicion, and search them. That notion should be completely abhorrent to freedom-loving people.
Person number one was walking out of the hotel with a suitcase in hand. Cops, seeing someone who was the same race as someone suspected in a shooting that happened in another city 15 hours earlier and 20 miles away, decides he will stop the person for questioning. During the stop, the drugs are found. Was this search/seizure justified?
Shortly thereafter, another black male, carrying a similar suitcase, was also seen coming out of the same hotel. Presumably, the drugs on the first man had already been found. Possibly, the police would have been justified in searching this man since they had already found the drugs on the first. However, since the search of the first man was probably unjustified, they would not under ordinary circumstances have had any reason to stop/search the second.
IOW, reward the cops and prosecution who break the law with a conviction? Let's not reward corruption, shall we?