There are several exceptions to the exclusionary rule. List and define three of those exceptions and the U.S. Supreme Court cases that may be involved in defining the law when the search may be conducted

Question

In your opinion, which of those exceptions offers the best protection for the de-fendant in a criminal case?

Answer 1

Good faith exception: U.S. v. Leon (1984) allowed evidence that officers had seized in "reasonable good faith" to be used in court, even though the search was later ruled illegal. In Illi-nois v. Krull (1987) the good-faith exception applied to a warrantless search supported by state law even though the state statute was later found to violate the Fourth Amendment. In Maryland v. Garrison (1987), the use of evidence obtained by officers with a search warrant that was inac-curate in its specifics was allowed.
The plain view doctrine: In Harris v. U.S. (1968), the Court found that police officers have the opportunity to begin investigations or to confiscate evidence, without a warrant, based on what they find in plain view and open to public inspection.
Clerical errors exception: In Arizona v. Evans (1995), a traffic stop that led to the seizure of ma-rijuana was legal even though officers conducted the stop based on an arrest warrant that should have been deleted from the computer database to which they had access. In Herring v. U.S. (2009), when police mistakes leading to an unlawful search are the result of isolated negligence rather than systemic error or reckless disregard of constitutional requirements, the exclusionary rule does not apply.
Emergency searches of property/emergency entry: In Brigham City v. Stuart (2006) the Court found that certain emergencies may justify a police officer's decision to search or enter premises without a warrant.