When a warrant plainly violates the Fourth Amendment's particularity requirement by authorizing an unbridled, general search of a home, does the good-faith exception save the fruits of the unconstitutional search from suppression

QUESTION PRESENTED This case involves a warrant that authorized officers to conduct an unbridled search of a home. The warrant was “so open-ended” that it could “only be described as a general one, akin to the instruments of oppression vivid in the memory of newly independent Americans when the Fourth Amendment was adopted.” United States v. Suggs, 998 F.3d 1125, 1135 (10th Cir. 2021). Under Groh v. Ramirez, 540 U.S. 551 (2004), suppression was warranted. Yet, a divided panel of the Tenth Circuit refused to suppress the fruits of the unconstitutional warrant and instead applied the goodfaith exception to the exclusionary rule. The question presented is: When a warrant plainly violates the Fourth Amendment’s particularity requirement by authorizing an unbridled, general search of a home, does the goodfaith exception save the fruits of the unconstitutional search from suppression. i