"good faith” exception, "involve an application of a "good faith” exception analysis only after determining that the warrant was invalid. Majority's opinion at 395 n. 21, 319 P.3d at 314 n. 21. However, our jurisprudence clearly establishes that the warrant in this case was per se invalid because it was mis-dated. See Endo, 83 Hawai'i at 94, 924 P.2d at 581. Thus, in our jurisdiction, upholding a mis-dated warrant would constitute an application of the "good faith” exception where it has been previously rejected. Ultimately, how the "good faith” exception is applied or formulated in other jurisdictions is irrelevant, since, as noted, Endo would hold the warrant was invalid. See id. at 93-94, 924 P.2d at 581—82. 20 . See also State v. Guzman, 122 Idaho 981, 842 P.2d 660, 671-72 (1992)
holding that one of the purposes of the exclusionary rule is to ensure police officers carefully review warrants holding that probation and parole revocation hearings are not criminal proceedings such that the state exclusionary rule applies but noting that police misconduct which shocks the conscience may lead to invocation of the exclusionary rule holding that exclusionary rule to be applied as a matter of state law is no broader than the federal rule holding exclusionary rule inapplicable to evidence obtained by police officers acting in reasonable reliance on search warrant later held invalid holding that a police officers illegal manner of entry into ones home is a constitutional violation albeit not one that triggers the exclusionary rule