Final answer:
The police action violated the ruling in the case of Michigan v. Tyler, which upholds that a new search warrant is necessary if the search extends beyond the period originally authorized.
Step-by-step explanation:
In the scenario provided, where police return to search a suspect's home three days after the initial search without obtaining a new warrant, they likely violated the Fourth Amendment ruling pronounced in Mapp v. Ohio. According to this landmark case, the use of evidence obtained from an illegal search or seizure is inadmissible in state court.
This principle is known as the exclusionary rule, which also applies to evidence subsequently developed as a result of the initial illegal action. The correct answer among the options provided is Michigan v. Tyler, which dealt with the lapse of a search warrant and the necessity of obtaining a new one if the time extended beyond the original search.