cottage), and that the air conditioner was emitting marijuana fumes. The affidavit gave no description of the cottage, pond, gazebo, or other characteristics of the area. At no time did it provide any information regarding distances or internal fencing. The one thing the affidavit did provide was a black & white photocopy of a photograph of Reilly’s land. But the photocopy is of such poor quality that it would do Rorschach proud. In Leon, the Supreme Court emphasized that “the deference accorded to a magistrate’s finding of probable cause does not preclude inquiry into the knowing or reckless falsity of the affidavit on which that determination was based.” Id. at 914, 104 S.Ct. at 3415. See also Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154, 155-56, 98 S.Ct. 2674, 2676-77, 57 L.Ed.2d 667 (1978) (<HOLDING>). We have previously held that recklessness may
holding that if police conduct  unconstitutional searches that acquire information used to obtain a search warrant then evidence seized during the later search conducted pursuant to warrant would be inadmissible as fruit of the poisonous tree holding evidence found pursuant to warrant based on probable cause provided by prior illegal entry was inadmissible as fruit of the poisonous tree holding that the trial courts damages award was against the manifest weight of the evidence because it was based upon inadmissible evidence holding that evidence seized pursuant to a warrant based on materially false and misleading information is inadmissible at trial holding that a warrant lacking a description of items to be seized was not facially invalid and finding in the alternative that even if the warrant were found to be deficient the seized evidence was admissible under the good faith exception