Does the exclusionary rule apply in the context of searches conducted in "reasonable reliance on binding precedent"?

"The fact that a Fourth Amendment violation occurredi.e., that a search or arrest was unreasonabledoes not necessarily mean that the exclusionary rule applies." (Herring v. United States (2009) 555 U.S. 135, 140 [172 L.Ed.2d 496, 504].) "To trigger the exclusionary rule, police conduct must be sufficiently deliberate that exclusion can meaningfully deter it, and sufficiently culpable that such deterrence is worth the price paid by the justice system." (Id. at p. 144 [172 L.Ed.2d at p. 507].)

In Davis v. United States (2011) 564 U.S. 229, 241 [180 L.Ed.2d 285, 297], the United States Supreme Court held the exclusionary rule does not apply to "[e]vidence obtained during a search conducted in reasonable reliance on binding precedent." The court reasoned: "An officer who conducts a search in reliance on binding appellate precedent does no more than ' "ac[t] as a reasonable officer would and should act" ' under the circumstances. [Citation.] The deterrent effect of exclusion in such a case can only be to discourage the officer from ' "do[ing] his duty." ' [Citation.]" (Ibid.)