What is the good faith exception?

• A. It allows any illegally obtained evidence to be admitted if the officer believed it was legal
• B. An exception to the Supreme Court exclusionary rule, holding that evidence seized on the basis of a mistakenly issued search warrant can be introduced at trial if the mistake was made in good faith
• C. It requires a probable cause showing for all seized evidence to be admissible
• D. It prohibits admission of evidence obtained in violation of Miranda rights

Answer: (B)

The good faith exception to the exclusionary rule says that evidence obtained under a warrant can still be used even if the warrant turns out to be defective, as long as the police reasonably relied on that warrant in good faith. This protects against throwing out reliable evidence just because of a technical mistake, provided the officers truly believed the warrant was valid and acted within its scope. The rationale is that the judiciary’s role in reviewing warrants shouldn’t penalize prosecutors and investigators for honest mistakes by the system, so long as there’s no police misconduct.

However, there are limits. The exception doesn’t apply if the police lied to or recklessy misled the judge, or if the warrant was so facially lacking that no reasonable officer would rely on it, or if the magistrate’s determination was flawed due to deliberate misrepresentations. In essence, it’s about preserving admissibility when good-faith reliance on a warrant is reasonable, rather than punishing honest errors. This aligns with the described idea that evidence seized on the basis of a mistakenly issued search warrant can be introduced at trial if the mistake was made in good faith.