a mere clerical error alone does not invalidate a warrant. Moreover, the cases cited by the dissent with regard to the "good faith” exception, see dissenting opinion at 418, 319 P.3d at 337, are factually distinguishable from the instant case and involve the application of a good faith exception analysis only after determining that the warrant was invalid. See State v. Covert, 368 S.C. 188, 628 S.E.2d 482, 486-87 (S.C.Ct.App.2006), aff'd, 382 S.C. 205, 675 S.E.2d 740 (2009) (conducting a good faith exception analysis after finding that a warrant was defective because the magistrate’s signature was dated two days after the search, and “there was no evidence that the magistrate signed the warrant before the search” (emphasis added)); State v. Maxwell, 38 So.3d 1086, 1091 (La.Ct.App.2010) (<HOLDING>); People v. Turnage, 162 Ill.2d 299, 205
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 holding that plain view requirement that there be a prior justification for the officers presence was met by search warrant and that even assuming that warrant was invalid good faith exception was applicable to permit admission of the evidence holding unconstitutional a search executed on a warrant that failed to list with particularity the items to be seized even where the supporting application contained such a list and the warrant was approved by a magistrate holding that defendants motion to suppress was properly denied because the actual items seized fell within the valid portions of the warrant holding that when a warrant did not describe the items to be seized at all it was so obviously deficient that we must regard the search as warrantless 