When will the exclusionary rule be applied to suppress evidence against a police officer who misled the issuing magistrate?

The Government urges that it is entitled to avoid suppression based on the exclusionary rule's good faith exception announced in United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (1984). This argument fails for three reasons. First, the same officer who was found to have deliberately and recklessly misled the issuing magistrate played a key role in executing the warrants. See Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154, 155-56 (1978); cf. Massachusetts v. Sheppard, 468 U.S. 981, 990 (1984) ("it was the judge, not the police officers, who made the critical mistake"). The Government acknowledges in its brief that Sergeant Mayberry participated in the residence search, the fruits of which make up the lion's share of the evidence ordered suppressed. Second, the warrants' underlying affidavit failed to state facts sufficient to justify the conclusion that evidence would probably be found in the places described, and therefore the other officers' reliance on those warrants was unreasonable. Leon, 468 U.S. at 923; United States v. Hove, 848 F.2d 137, 139-40 (executing deputy could not reasonably rely on warrant where its supporting affidavit, signed by another officer, failed to explain why incriminating evidence would be found in place to be searched). Third, the searches were found to have exceeded the bounds of the warrants and the district court said: