Final answer:
The drug house owner's exclusionary rule defense was most likely denied by the court due to the good faith exception, where the court allows evidence obtained from a warrant officers believed to be valid, even if there were issues with the actual warrant.
Step-by-step explanation:
In the scenario provided, the court denied the drug house owner's defense to use the exclusionary rule, likely due to the good faith exception. This exception allows the court to admit evidence obtained with a warrant if the officers executing the warrant believed it was issued properly, even if there were issues with the warrant itself. Since the officers, in this case, acted based on a warrant obtained from a judge, likely with the information provided via the informant, the belief in the validity of the warrant could make the good faith exception applicable.
Another relevant exception might be the inevitable discovery exception, which allows the admission of evidence if the court determines that the evidence would have eventually been discovered through lawful means. However, based on the information given, the good faith exception is the more likely reason the owner's attempt to leverage the exclusionary rule was denied.