Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): should have asserted the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule applicable to search warrants in an attempt to salvage this search. Because it failed to assert that legal theory as a basis for upholding this search in the trial court, the State cannot obtain the benefit of that law in this Court. Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Article 38.23(b) permits the admission of evidence obtained by an officer in violation of any provisions of the Constitution or laws of the State of Texas or the United States when “the evidence was obtained by a law enforcement officer acting in objective good faith reliance upon a warrant issued by a neutral magistrate based on probable cause.” See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 38.23(b); McClintock v. State, 444 S.W.3d 15, 20-21 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (<HOLDING>). Had the State argued to the trial court that 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that search of backpack constituted a search of defendants person and was not authorized by search warrant for premises (B) holding the search of a computer after the warrant had expired constitutional because despite the delay probable cause for the search continued to exist (C) holding that a visual body cavity search requires probable cause and a search warrant (D) holding that excluding the unlawfully obtained dogsniff evidence the remaining portion of the search warrant did not establish probable cause and therefore appellate court should consider whether the search should be upheld under the goodfaith exception applicable to search warrants (E) holding that observations made a during prior illegal search should not have been included in the affidavit for the search warrant
Output (English): holding that a visual body cavity search requires probable cause and a search warrant