Officers prepared an affidavit for a search and arrest warrant. For whatever reason, when the printed out the warrants, they only printed out a copy of a search warrant.

Believing that the warrant was for search and arrest. They arrest the Defendant. Defendant is interviewed and confesses to possession of child pornography. After the interview, law enforcement realizes that only a search warrant was signed. They go back to the same judge who then authorizes the arrest warrant.

Will the confession be excluded or can Texas's limited good faith exception save it?

I worry about hanging my hat on the good faith exception because the warrant as signed by the judge is only for a search of the premises. Only the affidavit in support of the warrant purports to be for search and arrest.

If anybody has dealt with something similar, we would appreciate the help.

Well... good faith isn't gonna help you because there was no reliance on an arrest warrant issued by a neutral magistrate. The magistrate issued a search warrant, not an arrest warrant.

I haven't thought about the other issues here yet, but I think good faith is a non-starter.

Look carefully at it--could it be a combination search and arrest warrant? If not, only option would be to look at the attenuation doctrine cases and see if they can help. Even if it is solely a search warrant form, it doesn't look like flagrant misconduct, just the wrong form...

I am guessing that the judge agreed that there was probable cause for the arrest. It would seem to make a difference if the officers went in seeking both types of warrants and the magistrate found only a search was warranted and limited the authorization accordingly. Assuming the judge understood what was sought and made the necessary determination, but just failed to properly document his decision, perhaps you could argue the arrestee was found in a suspicious place under circumstances (already reviewed by a magistrate) that reasonably showed he had committed a felony or was threatening to do so (even though the place was the suspect's home).

Otherwise, as John has stated, you will likely have to rely upon such cases as Ceccolini, 435 U.S. at 279, Nardone, 308 U.S. at 341, and Crews, 445 U.S. 463. Hopefully, the courts dealing with your case will not lose sight of the "fundamental notion" behind Wong Sun. Green, 111 F.3d at 521.