A more thorough explanation:

The Good Faith Exception to the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule allows for the use of evidence obtained through an unlawful search and seizure if the officers had a reasonable belief that they were acting within legal authority. This exception applies when officers rely on a search warrant that is later found to be legally defective or when they conduct a search in reliance on binding appellate precedent or a statute that is later invalidated.

• Arizona v. Evans: Officers relied on a search warrant that turned out to be invalid. However, since they acted in good faith, the illegally seized evidence was admissible under the Good Faith Exception.
• Davis v. U.S.: The Supreme Court ruled that the exclusionary rule does not apply when the police conduct a search in reliance on binding appellate precedent allowing the search.
• Illinois v. Krull: Evidence may be admissible if the officers rely on a statute that is later invalidated.
• Herring v. U.S.: The Court concluded that the Good Faith Exception applied when police employees erred in maintaining records in a warrant database.

These examples illustrate how the Good Faith Exception allows for the use of evidence obtained through an unlawful search and seizure if the officers acted in good faith and had a reasonable belief that they were acting within legal authority. This exception balances the need for law enforcement to carry out their duties with the protection of individual rights under the Fourth Amendment.