With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". notwithstanding its concession to the contrary, the Sandpiper Court and Baltimore Avenue warrants were supported by probable cause. Alternatively, the government contends that the seized evidence is admissible under the good faith exception to the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule articulated in United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897, 104 S.Ct. 3405 (1984). The parties differ, as a threshold matter, over whether we can properly consider the first contention in light of the government’s acknowledgment that it conceded lack of probable cause in the district court. We need not resolve such an issue, however, because we agree with the government’s second contention: that, at the very least, the Leon good faith exception applies. See United States v. Legg, 18 F.3d 240, 243 (4th Cir.1994) (<HOLDING>). In reaching this conclusion, we utilize a de

A: recognizing that a reviewing court may proceed to the good faith exception without first deciding whether the warrant was supported by probable cause citing leon 468 us at 925 104 sct 3405
B: recognizing the defense of good faith and probable cause in  1983 case involving unconstitutional warrantless arrest
C: holding the leon exception applicable where the ad dress on the warrant was different from the address in the affidavit
D: recognizing that the necessary inquiry  is not whether there was a warrant or whether there was time to get one but whether there was probable cause for the arrest
A.