Legal question :
If Nick tries to get the search warrant thrown out at the Omnibus hearing (fruit of the poison tree etc), and fails, can he still get a plea deal?
Do plea deal terms get worse if you do a motion to suppress which is denied?
Really the deals that get offered are totally up to the prosecution and sometimes the defense. They often exchange offers, threats to take away the deal if it isn't taken now, even sometimes presenting legal arguments to each other (although this can be dangerous early on for obvious reasons). Blustering, posturing, your case is shit, etc.
If there isn't something personal or some bones to be made this is usually really pragmatic stuff so it depends on the relative strength of the prosecution and defense's case. The prosecution will almost always make a decent offer if there's a chance of them losing because they make their reputation on their win rate. Even a single loss can put a serious dent in their reputation.
So you're usually not going to see an attempt at revenge solely because you dared a de rigeur motion to suppress. If you win completely, you've usually won in a drug case. No drugs? No case. If you win partially, you're probably in a better negotiation position so the deal may improve. If something comes out in the course of the motion that makes your case worse, the deal might get worse. Or nothing could happen and you're basically in the same position as you'd have been had you not litigated the motion (but you have an avenue for appeal and are out some money).
And you can cut a deal in most (all?) jurisdictions up until sentencing, even after a guilty verdict. That doesn't mean the prosecutor actually will offer one, though, because already having won, he really has nothing to lose by going ham on your ass except some time.
The question is really whether this prosecutor hates Nick personally enough to go for the kill regardless of pragmatism.
So for instance if he gets the cocaine in the safe thrown out on some argument I don't think much of, that is, the safe was outside the scope of the warrant, his situation would have improved immensely and he'd likely get a better deal. If he got the entire search thrown out, the case probably goes away, with the possible exception of the child abuse/neglect charge if they have "beyond a reasonable doubt" evidence.
If he said it was a prescription/alcohol interaction that just seemed indistinguishable from illicit drug use, that would just confirm the validity of the warrant: after all if there were no drugs they'd just find nothing and reach the same conclusion he is positing that his symptoms are just coincidentally similar.
Generally, they're not supposed to look at the outcome of executing the warrant, but just within the four corners of the document itself. The actual outcome is irrelevant if they should never have even obtained the evidence in the first place.
Also, the exclusionary rule is only triggered by
police misconduct. Even if the Scandinavian incel prudes, these fools who actually believe Jesus Christ was the Son of God, made all this stuff up because Nick is a vile hellbound heretic, it could still be probable cause, since the purpose of the exclusionary rule is to deter the police from violating the Fourth Amendment.
