Under the good faith saving provision, which scenario would typically defeat the good faith exception?

• A. The warrant had a minor error but still plausible.
• B. The magistrate was biased.
• C. The warrant was based on information provided by a reliable informant.
• D. The police relied on the warrant in good faith.

Answer: (B)

The good faith saving provision lets evidence seized under a warrant be admitted if the police acted with objective, reasonable reliance on the magistrate’s decision to issue the warrant. This relies on the idea that a neutral, judicial determination supported the probable cause. If the magistrate is biased, that neutrality is compromised, so the officers’ reliance on the warrant isn’t objectively reasonable. In that scenario, the basis for treating the warrant as valid collapses, and the good faith exception typically does not apply—the evidence can be excluded because the judicial determination itself was tainted.

By contrast, minor errors that are plausible in the warrant are generally not enough to defeat good faith, since courts recognize that clerical or technical deficiencies don’t automatically negate reasonable reliance. Information from a reliable informant or police acting in good faith also support the use of the good faith exception rather than defeating it.