What doctrine allows evidence obtained under a faulty search warrant to still be admissible?

The good-faith exception is a legal doctrine that allows evidence obtained from a search warrant to be admissible in court even if that warrant is later found to be faulty or invalid. This principle is rooted in the idea that law enforcement officers who execute a search warrant should not be penalized for acting in good faith, believing that the warrant was valid at the time of the search. The good-faith exception typically applies when officers have a reasonable belief that the warrant is legitimate, based on their training and experience, and have taken steps to comply with legal procedures.

This doctrine aims to strike a balance between the rights of individuals and the needs of law enforcement, ensuring that the judicial process is not unnecessarily hindered by minor errors or mistakes in the issuance of warrants. The courts recognize that requiring exclusion of evidence in all cases of warrant problems could lead to unwarranted suppression of relevant evidence that is crucial for justice.

In contrast, the other options revolve around different legal principles and do not address the admissibility of evidence obtained under faulty search warrants in the same way. The fruit of a poisonous tree doctrine typically excludes evidence derived from illegally obtained evidence, while qualified immunity pertains to protecting government officials from liability in civil lawsuits. The public safety exception deals with