Under what condition is evidence admissible despite a later declaration of an unconstitutional warrant?

The condition under which evidence is admissible despite a later declaration of an unconstitutional warrant is when officers relied on a warrant issued by a detached judge. This concept is rooted in the "good faith" exception established by the U.S. Supreme Court in cases such as United States v. Leon. The rationale is that if law enforcement officers act under the belief that their actions are lawful—based on a warrant that has been issued by a neutral judge—they should not be penalized for a technical error regarding the warrant's constitutionality.

This reliance is critical because it reflects the balance between society's interest in law enforcement pursuing their duties effectively and the individual's constitutional protections. A warrant from a detached judge indicates a judicial check and a reasonable basis for the officers' belief in the legitimacy of their actions. Therefore, evidence obtained under this condition can still be considered admissible in court, as the officers were acting in good faith.

The other options do not adequately address the specific legal interpretation surrounding the admissibility of evidence in the presence of an unconstitutional warrant. Acting without knowledge of the law or having probable cause by default does not sufficiently protect the due process guaranteed under the Constitution. Furthermore, corroboration by a witness does not mitigate the potential issues regarding the warrant itself; it