Keep in mind that the whole point of the 'exclusionary rule' being discussed here it to ensure that law enforcement does maintain the Fourth Amendment rights of a suspect by going through the due process procedures needed to obtain a warrant before conducting a search and/or seizure.

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.