I am not a lawyer, but the language of the opinion [1] seems to indicate that the geofence itself is not admissible, but evidence obtained as a result of it is still admissible:
> On November 4, 2022, Smith filed a Motion to Suppress—
which the other Appellants joined—seeking to suppress all evidence derived
from the November 2018 geofence warrant which was used to identify them
as suspects.
They were identified as suspects, and further investigation produced more evidence, which formed the case. What they are saying is that the good faith exception prevents this from tainting all derived evidence in this case, which seems reasonable.
The good faith exception is an exception to the exclusionary rule, not to the admissibility of the evidence itself.
> On November 4, 2022, Smith filed a Motion to Suppress— which the other Appellants joined—seeking to suppress all evidence derived from the November 2018 geofence warrant which was used to identify them as suspects.
They were identified as suspects, and further investigation produced more evidence, which formed the case. What they are saying is that the good faith exception prevents this from tainting all derived evidence in this case, which seems reasonable.
The good faith exception is an exception to the exclusionary rule, not to the admissibility of the evidence itself.
[1] https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/23/23-60321-CR0.pd...