presents the "novel issue" of whether the state exclusionary rule conceived in Larocco and Thompson provides broader protections to criminal defendants than its federal counterpart). In light of our important role in interpreting the Utah Constitution, see State v. Tiedemann, 2007 UT 49, ¶ 33, 162 P.3d 1106 (noting our "authority and obligation to interpret Utah's constitutional guarantees"), it seems more than appropriate to address this issue in a case that squarely presents it in extensive, careful briefing by the parties and their amicus, see State v. Earl, 716 P.2d 803, 806 (Utah 1986) ("'It is imperative that Utah lawyers brief this Court on relevant state constitutional questions."). 21 . See, e.g., United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897, 925, 104 S.Ct. 3405, 82 L.Ed.2d 677 (1984) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Williams, 416 Fed.Appx. 130,
holding that the fourth amendment remedy sought is suppression holding that the fourth amendment exclusionary rule should not bar the use of evidence obtained by police officers acting in good faith and with reasonable reliance on a facially valid search warrant recognizing good faith exception to fourth amendment exclusionary rule holding that courts may reject suppression motions posing no important fourth amendment questions by turning immediately to a consideration of the officers good faith holding that suppression is not an appropriate remedy for officers failure to serve a warrant to the defendant before during or immediately after the search