Can the prosecution use evidence obtained under a facially valid warrant if that warrant is later deemed not supported by probable cause?

The ability of the prosecution to use evidence obtained under a facially valid warrant that is later deemed not supported by probable cause hinges on the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule. This exception, established in the United States Supreme Court case United States v. Leon, allows evidence to be admissible if law enforcement officers acted in good faith and reasonably relied on the issuance of a warrant that they believed to be valid, even if it is later found lacking in probable cause.

In such cases, the rationale is that excluding evidence would not effectively deter police misconduct when the officers are acting on a warrant that appears to be valid. Therefore, as long as the officers did not have reckless disregard for the truth and followed the proper procedures in obtaining the warrant, the evidence may be permissible in court.

The other options present limitations or conditions that do not align with this good faith principle. For example, saying the prosecution cannot use the evidence at all disregards the good faith exception, while limiting its applicability to federal cases contradicts the broader application of the exclusionary rule and its exceptions across both state and federal jurisdictions. Lastly, suggesting that consent would allow the evidence to be used misinterprets the rules surrounding warrants and probable cause.