The whole point to the 'good faith' exception to the 'exclusionary rule' is that in such a case, the detective had complied with the Fourth Amendment, the issued warrant passed some "smell tests", etc. Therefore it doesn't make sense to automatically "punish" the government (and society) and let people go free under the 'fruit of the poisonous tree' principle, since law enforcement wasn't the one at fault in that scenario, but rather the judge who issued the warrant.
However, the 'good faith' exception is a possibility, not a mandate. The appellate judge can certainly decide that the evidence obtained under a warrant which is later deemed inadmissible should be excluded completely. All that the 'good faith' exception means is that the appellate judge doesn't have to exclude all that evidence; rather they can exclude what they deem essential toward meeting the interests of overall justice and fairness before remanding the case back to trial.
Either way, fighting back against "unreasonable warrants" is almost axiomatically a good idea; I don't think anyone wants "unreasonable warrants" floating around in the justice system. I find it hard to feel too bad for people who really committed a serious crime and left evidence to that effect though. The Bill of Rights is designed to protect the innocent from the government; that it also gives shielding to the guilty is the price that society has to pay, but that doesn't mean you should rely on such a shield being present if you commit a crime :P.
I find nothing unreasonable about the warrant here.
This is not the case and it is called the "good faith" exception. The police officers when acting in good faith under a warrant that is latter found to invalid does not make the evidence inadmissible.
Given this do you now believe there is good reason to fight back against unreasonable warrants?