The doctrine that allows admission of evidence seized under a defective warrant if the officer acted in good faith is known as the:

Prepare for the Search and Seizure Module 10 Test with comprehensive flashcards and multiple choice questions, complete with hints and explanations. Get ready to excel in your exam!

The main idea is the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule. This doctrine says that if police reasonably rely on a warrant that later turns out defective, the evidence seized under that warrant can still be admitted. The key is objective reasonableness: would a reasonable officer have believed the warrant was valid and acted on it in good faith? This principle, rooted in United States v. Leon, emphasizes that the purpose of the exclusionary rule is to deter misconduct, not to punish honest mistakes by officers who reasonably trust a judge’s authority. So, as long as the officers didn’t blatantly mislead the magistrate or rely on a warrant so lacking in probable cause that no reasonable officer would rely on it, the seized evidence can be admitted. This distinguishes it from other doctrines like the fruit of the poisonous tree, which deals with derivative evidence, the plain view doctrine, which covers voluntary discovery in plain sight, and the inevitable discovery doctrine, which allows admission if the evidence would have been found anyway.