People?v.?Camarella?(1991)?54?Cal.3d?592?,?286?Cal.Rptr.?780;?818?P.2d?63 [No.?S017787.?Oct?28,?1991.] THE?PEOPLE,?Plaintiff?and?Respondent,?v.?ROBERT?ANTHONY?CAMARELLA,?Defendant?and?Appellant. (Superior?Court?of?Placer?County,?No.?0412,?James?D.?Garbolino,?Judge.) (Opinion?by?Lucas,?C.?J.,?with?Panelli,?Kennard,?Arabian,?Baxter?and?George,?JJ.,?concurring.?Separate?dissenting?opinion?by?Mosk,?J.) COUNSEL Newsom,?Giffen?&?Bacon,?Newsom?&?Giffen?and?Brennan?J.?Newsom?for?Defendant?and?Appellant. John?K.?Van?de?Kamp?and?Daniel?E.?Lungren,?Attorneys?General,?Steve?White,?Richard?B.?Iglehart?and?George?Williamson,?Chief?Assistant?Attorneys?General,?Arnold?O.?Overoye?and?Robert?R.?Anderson,?Assistant?Attorneys?General,?Thomas?Y.?Shigemoto,?Michael?Weinberger?and?Carlos?A.?Martinez,?Deputy?Attorneys?General,?for?Plaintiff?and?Respondent. Kent?S.?Scheidegger,?Hunton?&?Williams?and?R.?Hewitt?Pate?as?Amici?Curiae?on?behalf?of?Plaintiff?and?Respondent. OPINION LUCAS,?C.?J. Introduction We?granted?review?to?resolve?a?split?of?authority?in?the?Courts?of?Appeal?regarding?interpretation?of?the?so-called?"good?faith"?exception?to?the?[54?Cal.3d?596]?exclusionary?rule,?as?set?out?in?United?States?v.?Leon?(1984)?468?U.S.?897?[82?L.Ed.2d?677,?104?S.Ct.?3405]?(Leon).?By?virtue?of?California?Constitution,?article?I,?section?28,?subdivision?(d),?the?issue?is?purely?one?of?federal?constitutional?law.?(See?In?re?Lance?W.?(1985)?37?Cal.3d?873,?886-887?[210?Cal.Rptr.?631,?694?P.2d?744].) [1]?In?Leon,?the?high?court?held?"the?Fourth?Amendment?exclusionary?rule?should?be?modified?so?as?not?to?bar?the?use?in?the?prosecution's?case?in?chief?of?evidence?obtained?by?officers?acting?in?reasonable?reliance?on?a?search?warrant?issued?by?a?detached?and?neutral?magistrate?but?ultimately?found?to?be?unsupported?by?probable?cause."?(468?U.S.?at?p.?900?[82?L.Ed.2d?at?p.?684].)?The?court?made?clear?that?the?government?has?the?burden?of?establishing?"objectively?reasonable"?reliance?(id.,?at?p.?924?[82?L.Ed.2d?at?p.?699]),?and?it?described?four?limited?situations?in?which?such?reliance?would?not?be?established,?and?in?which?suppression?under?the?exclusionary?rule?would?remain?an?appropriate?remedy:?(i)?the?issuing?magistrate?was?misled?by?information?that?the?officer?knew?or?should?have?known?was?false;?(ii)?the?magistrate?"wholly?abandoned?his?judicial?role";?(iii)?the?affidavit?was?"?'so?lacking?in?indicia?of?probable?cause'?"?that?it?would?be?"?'entirely?unreasonable'?"?for?an?officer?to?believe?such?cause?existed;?and?(iv)?the?warrant?was?so?facially?deficient?that?the?executing?officer?could?not?reasonably?presume?it?to?be?valid.?(Id.,?at?p.?923?[82?L.Ed.2d?at?p.?699],?italics?added.)?This?case?concerns?application?of?the?third?of?these?situations. The?issues?are:?In?deciding?whether?a?given?case?falls?within?the?third?situation?described?above,?what?test?of?"objective?reasonableness"?should?apply,?and?what?effect,?if?any,?should?a?court?give?to?the?fact?that?a?magistrate?signed?a?search?warrant?later?used?to?effect?the?search? We?distill?from?Leon,?supra,?468?U.S.?897,?and?its?progeny?the?following:?If?a?well-trained?officer?should?reasonably?have?known?that?the?affidavit?failed?to?establish?probable?cause?(and?hence?that?he?should?not?have?sought?a?warrant),?exclusion?is?required?under?the?third?situation?described?in?Leon,?and?a?court?may?not?rely?on?the?fact?that?a?warrant?was?issued?in?assessing?objective?reasonableness?of?the?officer's?conduct?in?seeking?the?warrant.?But?in?all?other?cases,?unless?one?of?the?other?limited?Leon?situations?is?triggered,?Leon's?"general"?rule?of?nonexclusion?will?apply. On?the?facts?of?this?case,?we?find?the?Court?of?Appeal?erred?in?concluding?that?a?well-trained?officer?should?reasonably?have?known?that?the?affidavit?at?issue?here?failed?to?establish?probable?cause?for?the?search?of?defendant's?home.?Pursuant?to?Leon,?we?conclude?the?police?reasonably?relied?on?the?magistrate's?issuance?of?the?warrant,?and?thus?it?would?be?improper?to?[54?Cal.3d?597]?suppress?the?evidence?on?the?ground?urged?by?defendant.?Accordingly,?we?will?reverse?the?decision?of?the?Court?of?Appeal. Facts?and?Procedure Placer?County?Sheriff's?Detective?John?Addoms?received?a?telephone?call?from?an?anonymous?informant?who?claimed?defendant?was?selling?cocaine.?Addoms?conducted?additional?investigation?(described?below)?and?prepared?a?draft?affidavit?that?he?showed?to?a?deputy?district?attorney,?who?approved?the?document.?Addoms?then?submitted?the?affidavit?to?a?local?magistrate,?who?found?probable?cause?and?issued?a?search?warrant.?The?affidavit's?recitation?of?facts?supporting?probable?cause?read?as?follows: "Your?affiant?has?been?a?Deputy?Sheriff?for?the?past?five?years,?employed?in?[that]?capacity?by?the?Placer?County?Sheriff's?Office?and?has?acted?and?received?the?information?set?forth?in?this?affidavit?in?that?capacity.…