WPC@ e'wN윀O~e35b(/N0ɡbel@D ֈSo]VUeQ_v:FF_u:,gH6xdKTQlVVnwDnfVu%ihhp t+~^bGԁwAv;6[P_Gޙ2í]*K鍧t&z9ZnlyJbWM7U(f ^T#Y@WQ(ZNJ J.A>[`En^:mi^n! 0v" 0`}" 0`" 0`=# 0`# 0`# 08]$ 0$ 02g% 0% 0:& 0Y& 0_(' 0 ' 0j( 0) B*+ D/+ D++ 0, D/- 0- 06.U0.(. 00 0:1 0^T1 0<1 1e1U6S2U>2U:2U*3UF+3 1uq3 72345 05 0D6 16Vy7 0N99 B:U8::r:Ez:U@|:T:<UF=b>:>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>bY>HP LaserJet 2100 Series PCL 5e,,,,0(9 Z6Times New Roman RegularX($USUS.,zT3 <4 9Z+ Courier New '3:i+003|xU*+ (_2623  ..*G+M (_25   /%` ` hp x /23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *D+M (_24   ," hp x ,23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *A+M (_23  ` ) hp x )23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *>+M (_22   &hhp x &23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *;+M (_21   #p x #23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *8+M (_20  h  p x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *5+M (_19   pp x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *2+M (_18    x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  * (_1723  Ԁ*GM (_16   /%` ` hp x /23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *DM (_15   ," hp x ,23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *AM (_14  ` ) hp x )23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *>M (_13   &hhp x &23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *;M (_12   #p x #23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *8M (_11  h  p x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *5M (_10   pp x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  (2M &_9    x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  ( &_823  (GM &_7   /%` ` hp x /23   5+ ` hp x 5  (DM &_6   ," hp x ,23   5+ ` hp x 5  (AM &_5  ` ) hp x )23   5+ ` hp x 5  (>M &_4   &hhp x &23   5+ ` hp x 5  (;M &_3   #p x #23   5+ ` hp x 5  (8M &_2  h  p x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  (5M &_1   pp x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  &2M $_    x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  0.Normal<:Definition T<AA:Definition L , 5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 586Definition(''&H1      (&H2  (&H3  (&H4 XXX (&H5  (&H6  20Address8MM6Blockquote , , 5+ ` hp x 5   5+ ` hp x 5,*CITE,dl*CODEKJ<6X9`(Courier NewKSK\  `&Times New RomanS42Emphasis64Hyperlink    <:FollowedHype    4go2Keyboard KJ<6X9`(Courier NewKSK\  `&Times New RomanS <:Preformatted/%  ,Kk %#/KJ<6X9`(Courier NewKSK\  `&Times New RomanS/%  ,Kk %#/<:zBottom of 7=(X7  ?M%2A`Arial?  SK\  `&Times New RomanS7>(X7&  d d<)1dxd'dxd<:zTop of For7@(X7  ?M%2A`Arial?  SK\  `&Times New RomanS7>(X7<)2dxd0KS.SampleKJ<6X9`(Courier NewKSK\  `&Times New RomanS0.Strong <\( 9Z+Courier   S$USUS.,  =tXdd=    *    _XDXXXԀOftheSixthCircuit,sittingbydesignation.#XtXXXD#8dl6TypewriterKJ<6X9`(Courier NewKSK\  `&Times New RomanS42Variable: 8HTML MarkupB      2 0CommentB   35;AGMSY_11.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.<6X9`(Courier New\  `&Times New Roman,`  "CG Times Bold%2A`Arial.Courier New Regular3#37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)Oi)  S$USUS.,  =tXdd=    3    _XDXXXԀMostofthecaselawregardingsuchdescriptionsconcernsthe  sufficiencyofevidenceattrial,notthefindingofprobablecause  forasearchwarrant.#XtXXXD# e (w(2$ !USUS.,    =Xdd=    0  (#$  0  (5hCEKQW]cioAutoList1I.I.I.I.I.I.I.I. L S$USUS.,  =tXdd=    4    _ԀXDXXXThisprovisionwasformerlyfoundinRule41(c)(1).The  languageofRule41wasamendedaspartofageneralrestyling  throughamendmentseffectiveDecember1,2002.SeeAdvisory x CommitteeNotes.Noonehasarguedthatthe restylinghasany N substantiveeffectinthiscase.  (O$ d<4 9Z+ Courier New  (9 Z(Times New Roman  J S$USUS.,  =tXdd=    **    _XDXXXԀ#XtXXXD#XDXXXtOftheDistrictofMassachusetts,sittingbydesignation.  S$USUS.,  =tXdd=    2    _ԀZXDXXXThenamecomesfromthewellknownnovelbyVladimir_Nabokov_,  Lolita,publishedfiftyyearsagoaboutamanwhobecameobsessed  withseducingayounggirl.<4 9Z+.Courier New Regular- - 0 a #NuNXd# X S$USUS.,  =tXdd=    1    _ԀZXDXXXAppellantalsoarguesinpassingthatthewarrantviolates  theFirstAmendmentbutdoesnotdevelopthisargumentasa  separatebasisforrelief.Theassessmentofprobablecauseisno x differentwhereFirstAmendmentconcernsmaybeatissue. N Brunette,256F.3dat1617.#XtXXZXD# !USUS.,  _XDXXX RO8tXXdd8  b @  @`  @  @  @h LXtXXXDLtXXLXt @  @`  @  @ #XLt(#]H.#]XtX]H.G#]X]XtUnitedStatesCourtofAppeals  #]XtX]#]H.X]XtFortheFirstCircuit#]XtX]H.s#]X]Xt#u ]鋼#`u  u   AY\) ` dE< ` A   #u  `u ##XDX u#XXDLtX#XLt##XDX#   `     h     No.042438    h      p    9  @UNITEDSTATESOFAMERICA,  5    Appellee,   @tt)v. g  @hh#DONALD_SYPHERS_, c    Defendant,Appellant. 9 >AY\) ` dE<@` A A @ APPEALFROMTHEUNITEDSTATESDISTRICTCOURT &v @0 0 FORTHEDISTRICTOFNEWHAMPSHIRE L @[Hon.JosephA._DiClerico_,Jr.,CXDXXXDU.S.DistrictJudge#XDXXCXD#]  AY\) ` dE<S` A T @'Before 9 @<< Boudin,ChiefJudge, 5   Ӏ_Siler_*!,D T#  *      ׀SeniorCircuitJudge,    @ andSaris,^f T#  **      ׀DistrictJudge.   AY\) ` dE<"` A "c#     CXDXXXDJonathanR._Saxe_,AssistantFederalPublicDefender,for "H% appellant.  #&   PeterE._Papps_,AssistantUnitedStatesAttorney,withwhom $' ThomasP._Colantuono_,UnitedStatesAttorney,wasonbrief,for z% ( appellee. P&!)    #XDXXCXD #AY\) ` dE<'` A 'L#+ October_20,_Ԁ2005 (1$- ____________________ )%. b ba8NDNXXdXXd8 b  q      ` SARIS,DistrictJudge.      @@,,"I.INTRODUCTION  x    ` DefendantappellantDonald_Syphers_Ԁappealsthedenialby @ theUnitedStatesDistrictCourtfortheDistrictofNewHampshire  < ofamotiontosuppressevidenceofchildpornographyrecovered   fromhiscomputer.Appellantarguesthattheaffidavitinsupport D   ofthestatecourtwarrantfailedtoestablishprobablecauseto @  searchthecomputerbecauseitdidnotincludecopiesor   descriptionsoftheallegedpornographicimagesthatwouldprovide H  thebasisforevaluatingwhetherthesubjectswerelikelyreal D children,andfailsthestandardforthegoodfaithexceptionto  theFourthAmendmentexclusionaryrule.Appellantalsocontends L thatthepoliceheldthecomputerforanunreasonableamountof H timeinordertoconductthesearch,inviolationofFed.R._Crim_.  P.41(e)(2)(A).Weaffirmthedistrictcourtsruling. P    II.BACKGROUND  L    ` InAugust2001,theConcord,NewHampshirePolice   Departmentbeganinvestigatingappellantsallegedsexualassault p!" oftwogirlswhowereagesfourteenandfifteenatthetime.The #l$ policeinterviewedthegirls.Appellanthadallegedlyphotographed $ & themwiththeirbreastsexposedandfondledtheirbreasts. t&!(    ` Basedonthisinformation,DetectiveSeanP.Dougherty,  (p#* aninvestigatorintheareaofchildabuseandsexualassault(but )%, notchildpornography),obtainedastatecourtsearchwarrant, x+&. _whichisnotchallenged,forappellantsresidenceinHillsboro,  NewHampshire.DuringthesearchonNovember5,2001,police \ seizedaGatewaycomputer,aswellascameras,camerabags, X undevelopedfilm,photographs,acamcorder,andmorethanseventy   videotapes. `     ` Thesearchalsoyielded,accordingtoDetective  \  Dougherty,sheetsofpapercontaining photographsoffemaleminors   thatappearedtobeyoungerthan16yearsold.In[]severalofthe d  photographs,anerectpenishadbeensuperimposedandincontactor `  closeproximitytothemouthofthefemaleminortosimulateoral   sex.DetectiveDoughertyappliedforasecondwarrant,basedon h thisdescription,tosearchtheitemsseizedinthefirstsearch d becausehebelievedthattheywouldyieldevidenceofchild  pornographyandsexualassault. l    ` OnNovember8,2001,astatecourtissuedasecond h warrant(alsonotchallenged)tosearchafootlocker,developfilm,  andviewthevideotapesseizedatappellantsresidence.Someof p  thevideotapescontainedcommerciallyproducedadultpornography !l" splicedwithsegmentsofteenagetelevisionactresses.The "$ videotapesalsocontainedpornographicmaterial thatappearedto t$& havebeenfilmedfromacomputermonitor.DetectiveDougherty  &p!( statedthatthe monitorandbackdropappearedconsistentwith '#* [appellants]monitorandthebackdropoftheroomwherethe x)$, computerwaslocated. $+t&.    ` DetectiveDoughertythensoughtathirdwarranttosearch  appellantscomputer"thewarrantatissueinthisappeal.The \ affidavitinsupportofthiswarrantdescribedthematerialsseized X fromappellantsapartmentunderthefirsttwowarrants,including   the photographsoffemalesubjects,somewhoappearedtobe `  minors.Theaffidavitalsodescribedthevideotapeofwhat  \  appearedtobeappellantscomputermonitor:   Someofthepornographicmaterialsappearedtooriginate d  fromawebsiteidentifiedaswww.lolitas.com.These :  sitescontainedpornographicfootageoffemalesubjects `  engagedinoralsexandorintercoursewithoneormore 6 maleparties.Alsonotedonthetapeswerestill   photographsoffemalesubjectswithbreastsandor  genitaliaexposed.Someofthesubjectsofthesetapes h appeartobeundertheageof18yearsofage.  >      ` AstatecourtissuedthethirdwarrantonNovember28, : 2001.Thesameday,theprosecutormovedforanadditionaltwelve  monthstosearchthecomputerduetoan overwhelmingbacklogin B similarcomputercrimes.Thecourtgrantedthemotion.In > January2002,_Syphers_Ԁpledguiltyinstatecourttoareduced  chargeofsimpleassault. F !    ` Followingtheresolutionofallpendingstatesexual !B# assaultcharges,appellantfiledamotionforreturnofhis #% computeronApril5,2002.Thestateobjectedongroundsthatit J% ' neededmoretimetocompletereviewing64,000newlydeencrypted &F") imagesonthecomputerandtosharethematerialwiththeUnited (#+ StatesAttorneysoffice.Thestatecourtdeniedthemotion.The N*%- policecompletedthesearchofthecomputerinJune2002,within +J'/ thetwelvemonthwarrantextensionwindow.Thesearchofthe  computeryieldedatleastten(butnotmorethan100)imagesof \ childpornography.TheFBIreviewedthematerial,identified X severalofthesubjectsasrealchildren,andidentifiedthe   sourcesofsomeoftheimages. `     ` OnJune19,2003,afederalgrandjuryreturnedan  \  indictmentofappellantononecountofpossessionofchild   pornographyinviolationof18U.S.C.2252A(a)(5)(B).On d  December18,2003,theUnitedStatesDistrictCourtforthe `  DistrictofNewHampshiredeniedappellantsmotiontosuppressthe   materialrecoveredfromhiscomputer.UnitedStatesv._Syphers_, h 296F.Supp.2d50,5556(_D.N.H._Ԁ2003)(_DiClerico_,J.)(denying d motiontosuppressunderthegoodfaithexceptionandholdingthat  thedurationofthecomputerseizurewasnotexcessive). l    ` OnMay20,2004,thedistrictcourtdeclaredamistrial h inappellantscase.Thepartiesthennegotiatedapleaagreement  inwhichappellantreservedtherighttoappealtherulingonhis p  motiontosuppress,pursuanttoFed.R._Crim_.P.11(a)(2).The !l" sentencingguidelinecalculationwasbasedonappellants "$ possessionofchildpornography,theevidenceofwhichwasobtained t$& fromhiscomputer.OnOctober14,2004,appellantwassentencedto  &p!( thirtymonthsimprisonment.Appellantherechallengesonlythe '#* denialofhismotiontosuppress. x)$,  $+t&.    III.STANDARDOFREVIEW   /   ` Inreviewingadistrictcourtsdenialofasuppression x motion,thisCourtreviewsthedistrictcourtsfindingsoffact $t forclearerror...[and]reviewsquestionsoflawdenovo.   UnitedStatesv.Dunning,312F.3d528,531(1stCir.2002).    [_D]eterminations_Ԁof...probablecauseshouldbereviewedde 4   novoonappeal._Ornelas_v.UnitedStates,517U.S.690,699,116 <  S.Ct.1657,134L.Ed.2d911(1996).However, areviewingcourt   shouldtakecarebothtoreviewfindingsofhistoricalfactonly P  forclearerrorandtogivedueweighttoinferencesdrawnfrom L thosefactsbyresidentjudgesandlocallawenforcementofficers.  Id.Reviewofgoodfaithdeterminationsisalsodenovo.United T Statesv.Brunette,256F.3d14,17(1stCir.2001).  \    IV.DISCUSSION  4A.ProbableCause  *XX XX*   ` TheFourthAmendmentrequiresprobablecauseforasearch H warranttoissue.U.S.Const.amend.IV. Probablecausefora D  warrantbasedonanaffidavit existswhereinformationinthe !" affidavitrevealsafairprobabilitythatcontrabandorevidence L#$ ofacrimewillbefoundinaparticularplace.Probabilityis $H & thetouchstoneofthisinquiry.UnitedStatesv._Baldyga_,233 &!( F.3d674,683(1stCir.2000)(quotingUnitedStatesv. P(#* _Khounsavanh_,113F.3d279,283(1stCir.1997)).Thus, [_t]he_ )L%, standardofprobablecauserequiresaprobability,notaprima +&. facieshowing,ofcriminalactivity.UnitedStatesv.Burke,999  F.2d596,599(1stCir.1993);seealsoUnitedStatesv._DeQuasie_, \ 373F.3d509,518(4thCir.2004)( Theprobablecausestandard X doesnotrequireofficialstopossessanairtightcasebefore   takingaction.(internalquotationsandcitationomitted)). `     ` Thestandardappliedindeterminingthesufficiencyof  \  anaffidavitisatotalityofthecircumstancestest.United   Statesv.Garcia,983F.2d1160,1167(1stCir.1993)(quoting d  Illinoisv.Gates,462U.S.213,238,103S.Ct.2317,76L.Ed.2d `  527(1983)). [_S]earch_Ԁwarrantsandaffidavitsshouldbe   consideredinacommonsensemanner,and_hypertechnical_Ԁreadings h shouldbeavoided._Baldyga_,233F.3dat683(quotingUnited d Statesv.Bonner,808F.2d864,868(1stCir.1986));seealso  Marylandv._Pringle_,540U.S.366,370,124S.Ct.795,157L.Ed. l 2d769(2003)( [_T]he_Ԁprobable-causestandardisapractical, h nontechnicalconceptionthatdealswiththefactualandpractical  considerationsofeverydaylifeonwhichreasonableandprudent p  men,notlegaltechnicians,act.(internalquotationsandcitation !l" omitted)). "$    ` However, probablecausetoissueawarrantmustbe t$& assessedbyajudicialofficer,notaninvestigatingagent.  &p!( Brunette,256F.3dat18. Thisjudicialdeterminationis '#* particularlyimportantinchildpornographycases,wherethe x)$, existenceofcriminalconductoftendependssolelyonthenatureof $+t&. thepictures.Id.  Acourtreviewingawarrantapplicationtosearchfor \ pornographicmaterialsordinarilyisunabletoperform 2 theevaluationrequiredbytheFourthAmendmentifthe X applicationisbasedonallegedlypornographicimages . neitherappendedto,nordescribedin,thesupporting   affidavit.Ideally,copiesofsuchimageswillbe   includedinallsearchwarrantapplicationsseeking `  evidenceofchildpornographycrimes.Ifcopiescannot 6   feasiblybeobtained,adetaileddescription,including  \  thefocalpointandsettingoftheimage,andposeand  2  attireofthesubject,willgenerallysufficetoallowa   magistratejudgetomakeaconsideredjudgment.zB   ^BlBId.at20. :     ` Appellantarguesthatthethirdwarrantlackedprobable 6 causeinlightofthisCourtsholdinginBrunetteandtheSupreme  CourtholdinginAshcroftv.FreeSpeechCoalition,535U.S.234, > 122S.Ct.1389,152L.Ed.2d403(200*s,inclu2).r T#  1      ׀InFreeSpeech : Coalition,involvingastatutorybanonarangeofsexually  explicitimageswhichwereproducedwithoutusingrealchildren, B theSupremeCourtheldthattheprohibitiononchildpornography > thatonly appearstobe[]ofaminorengaginginsexually  explicitconductwas_overbroad_ԀandviolatedtheFirstAmendment. F ! Id.at256.TheCourtsholdingextendstocomputergenerated !B# images( virtualchildpornography)aswellasimagesofreal #% adultswholookasthoughtheyareminors( youthfuladult J% ' pornography).Seeid.at241;seealsoid.at261(OConnor,J.,  concurringinpartanddissentinginpart).Therefore,afterFree \ SpeechCoalition,thegovernmentmustproveaselementsofthe X crime boththattheimagedepictsanactualchild,notavirtual   child,andthatthepersondepictedisachild,notanadult,to `  sustainachildpornographyconviction.SeeUnitedStatesv.  \  Hilton,386F.3d13,18(1stCir.2004).      ` Thiscaseconcernsthesufficiencyoftheaffidavitto d  supportprobablecause,notthesufficiencyofevidencefora `  conviction.Cf.id. [_P]robable_Ԁcauseonlyrequiresaprobability   orsubstantialchanceofcriminalactivity,notanactualshowing h ofsuchactivity.UnitedStatesv.Garcia,197F.3d1223,1227 d (8thCir.1999)(internalquotationsandcitationomitted).  Appellantcites,andtheCourtfinds,noprecedentthatwould l requireamoresubstantialshowingforasearchwarrantinachild h pornographycasepostFreeSpeechCoalition.Thus,anaffiantmust  establishprobablecause,basedonthetotalityofthe p  circumstances,thatevidenceofchildpornographydepictingminors !l" willbediscoveredataparticularlocationtosecureawarrantto "$ searchatthatlocation.See_Baldyga_,233F.3dat683. t$&    ` Initsbrief,thegovernmentarguesthattheapplication  &p!( forthethirdwarrantestablishedprobablecausethatevidenceof '#* criminalactivitywouldbefoundinappellantscomputer.See x)$, _Syphers_,296F.Supp.2dat55.Intheparticularcircumstancesof $+t&. thiscase,theremayhavebeenprobablecause.Astheaffidavit  described,thecasebeganwithappellantsallegedphotographing \ andfondlingofminorgirls,agesfourteenandfifteen,bothof X whomthepoliceinterviewed.Theinvestigationproceededthrough   twosuccessivesearchwarrants,eachofwhichresultedinevidence `  ofpotentialcriminalactivity.Cf.Brunette,256F.3dat19  \  (distinguishingUnitedStatesv.Smith,795F.2d841(9thCir.   1986),ongroundsthatinSmiththeaffiantprovided otherindicia d  ofprobablecause).Someofthepornographicmaterialsappeared `  tooriginatefromawebsiteidentifiedaswww.lolitas.com, Lolita   beingawellknownmonikerforminorgirls.__ T#  2      _ԀSeeUnitedStatesv. h Gourde,382F.3d1003,1005(9thCir.2004)(describingmaterial d fromother _lolita_website),_rehg_Ԁgranted,416F.3d961(9thCir.  2005);UnitedStatesv.Grimes,244F.3d375,379n.7(5thCir. l 2001)( Lolitaisoftenacodewordforchildpornography.).  h Moreover,DetectiveDoughertyprovidedinhisaffidavitdetailed 0 descriptionsofthesexualactivitydepictedintheimagesseized   duringpriorsearches.Cf.Brunette,256F.3dat17( [_T]he_ 8!" affidavit...didnotspecifywithanydetailthebasisfor "4$ believingthat[the]imageswerepornographic.). $&    ` Whatmakesthisatoughcallisthattheapplicationdid <&!( notincludetheimagesseizedpreviouslyorprovideanydetailed '8#* descriptionofthephysiologicalfeaturesofthepersonsdepicted  inthoseimages(i.e.,bydescribingbodyproportion,growthand \ development).Seegenerally,UnitedStatesv.Hilton,386F.3dat X 15( TheTannerScalewasdevelopedthroughanalysisofmany   childrenbothintheUnitedStatesandthroughouttheworldand `  providesabasisforestimatingapersonsstageofphysiological  \  development.);UnitedStatesv.Hall,312F.3d1250,1263(11th   Cir.2002)(discussingtestimonythatthegirlinanimagewas d   definitelyunder12basedon thesmallsizeofthechild `  overall,thesmallsizeofherhands,hertotallackofpubichair   andbreasttissuedevelopment,andtherelativesizeofthechild h vis--vistheadultmaleinthepicture),cert.denied,538U.S. d 954,123S.Ct.1646,155L.Ed.2d502(2003);UnitedStatesv.  Katz,178F.3d368,37374(5thCir.1999)(describingthe Tanner l Scalefordeterminingtheageof_postpubescent_ԀCaucasianfemales h basedonbreastdevelopmentandpubichairdevelopment).Q T#  3      ׀Atoral  argument,thegovernmentrefrainedfromarguinginsupportof p  probablecauseinlightofthisomission.Althoughthegovernment !l" didnotconcedeanabsenceofprobablecausebasedonFreeSpeech "$ CoalitionandBrunette,itsdefenseofthewarrantapplicationwas t$& tepid,atbest,anditacknowledgedthatincludinginawarrant  &p!( applicationtheimagesofallegedchildpornographyseized '#* previouslyis thesafestwaytogo.     ` Inthesecircumstances,theCourtneednotdecideunder \ thetotalityofthecircumstanceswhetherprobablecausesupported X thethirdwarrant,despitetheomissionoftheimagesanda   specificdescriptionofthesubjectstodemonstratethattheywere `  actualchildren,becausetheissuanceofthethirdwarrant  \  satisfiesthegoodfaithexceptiontotheexclusionaryrule.See   UnitedStatesv.Robinson,359F.3d66,69(1stCir.2004).The d  bestpracticeisforanapplicantseekingawarrantbasedonimages `  ofallegedchildpornographytoappendtheimagesorprovidea   sufficientlyspecificdescriptionoftheimagestoenablethe h magistratejudgetodetermineindependentlywhethertheyprobably d depictrealchildren.Anofficerwhofailstofollowthisapproach  withoutgoodreasonfacesasubstantialriskthattheapplication l forawarrantwillnotestablishprobablecause.SeeBrunette,256 h F.3dat20.   B.GoodFaith  p     ` Wereviewdenovodeterminationsthattheapplicationfor 8!" asearchwarrantsatisfiesthegoodfaithexceptiontothe "@$ exclusionaryruleestablishedinUnitedStatesv.Leon,468U.S. $& 897,922,104S.Ct.3405,82L.Ed.2d677(1984). Theusual H&!( remedyforseizuresmadewithoutprobablecauseistoexcludethe 'D#* evidencewrongfullyseizedinordertodeterfutureviolationsof )$, theFourthAmendment.Brunette,256F.3dat19;seealsoUnited L+&. Statesv._Capozzi_,347F.3d327,332(1stCir.2003)(statingthat  exclusionofevidenceisappropriate wheretheaffidavitisso \ lackinginindiciaofprobablecauseastorenderofficialbelief X initsexistenceentirelyunreasonable). Thisexclusionaryrule   doesnotobtain,however,whereanobjectivelyreasonablelaw `  enforcementofficerreliedingoodfaithonadefectivewarrant  \  becausesuppressioninthatinstancewouldservenodeterrent   purpose.Brunette,256F.3dat19(citingLeon,468U.S.at920 d  21(1984));seealsoRobinson,359F.3dat69.AsthisCourt `  statedinapplyingthegoodfaithexceptioninBrunette:    [_A]lthough_Ԁweholdthattheomissionofimagesoradescriptionof h themwasaseriousdefectinthewarrantapplication,theuncertain d stateofthelawatthetimemaderelianceonthewarrant  objectivelyreasonable.256F.3dat19. l    ` Thestatecourtissuedthethirdwarrantjustfourmonths h afterthedecisioninBrunette.WhileBrunetteemphasizesthe  importanceofprovidingimagesorasufficientdescriptionofthem p  withanapplicationforachildpornographyrelatedwarrant, !l" Brunettewasnotspecificallydirectedtowhetherthesubjectof "$ theimageswasaminor,butinsteadtowhethertheimagesdepicted t$& alasciviousexhibitionofachildsgenitals.Id.TheCourtheld  &p!( inBrunettethattheCustomsServiceAgentaffiants barelegal '#* assertion[thatphotosdepictedaprepubescentboylasciviously x)$, displayinghisgenitals],absentanydescriptivesupportand $+t&. withoutanindependentreviewoftheimages,wasinsufficientto  sustainthemagistratejudgesdeterminationofprobablecause. \ Id.at17. X    ` Incontrast,DetectiveDoughertyprovidedsignificant   detailindescribingthesexualactivitydepictedintheimages. `  Althoughhedidnotprovideinformationthatwouldallowajudgeto  \  assessindependentlywhetherthesubjectswereactualminors,the   SupremeCourtdidnotdecideFreeSpeechCoalitionuntilApril d  2002,fivemonthsaftertheissuingofthethirdwarrant. `  Meanwhile,thevalidityofthestatutethatcriminalizedthe   possessionofimageswhich appearedtodepictminorsengagedin h sexualactivityhadbeenupheldbythisCourt.SeeUnitedStates d v.Hilton,167F.3d61,65(1stCir.1999).Underthenprevailing  _caselaw_,thepolicewhoexecutedthethirdwarranthadan l objectivelyreasonablebelief,basedonthecourseofthe h investigationandthedescriptionsincludedintheapplicationfor  thethirdwarrant,thatprobablecausesupportedthethirdwarrant. p  SeeRobinson,359F.3dat70(applyingthegoodfaithexceptionto !l" asearchwarrantinachildpornographycasebecausetheofficer "$  believedthattheevidenceintheaggregategaveprobablecauseto t$& believethat[thedefendant]wasstoringillegalimagesinhis  &p!( computer,andhiswarrantaffidavitwasfarfrombarebones). '#* Therefore,thegovernmenthasmetitsheavyburdenofshowingthat x)$, thegoodfaithexceptiontotheexclusionaryruleapplies.See $+t&. Leon,468U.S.at92021.   C.WarrantExtension  \   } ` Appellantarguesthatthepoliceheldthecomputerforan $t unreasonableamountoftimeandviolatedFed.R._Crim_.P.   41(e)(2)(A),V T#  4      ׀whichstatesthatawarrantmustcommandanofficer |  to executethewarrantwithinaspecifiedtimenolongerthan10 ( x  days. $     ` ThegovernmentarguesthatthetendaystrictureinRule   41isnotapplicablebecausethereisnoevidencethatthesearch ,|  wasfederalinnature.Appellantrespondsthatthestatelaw ( enforcementofficialsintendedtoturntheevidenceoverfor  federalprosecutionatthetimetheysearchedthecomputer,thus 0 triggeringthetendaytimelimitofRule41.Ifthewarrantisa , properstatewarrant,theneachrequirementofRule41isnot  necessary eventhoughfederalofficialsparticipatedinits 4 procurationorexecution.UnitedStatesv._Krawiec_,627F.2d577, 0 581(1stCir.1980)(citationomitted).      ` Inthiscase,thecomputersearchthatyieldedevidence 8!" laterusedinafederalprosecutionwasconductedbystatelaw "4$ enforcementpursuanttoastatecourtsearchwarrant.Thereisno $& evidencethatfederalagentsparticipatedinthestate <&!( investigation,procurementofthewarrant,orrequestfor  extension.Therefore,theinvestigationwasnotfederalin \ character,andthetendaystrictureofRule41doesnotapply. X    `  [_T]he_ԀFourthAmendment,notfederalrulesorstatelaw,   governstheadmissibilityofevidenceobtainedbystateofficers `  butultimatelyusedinafederalprosecution.UnitedStatesv.  \  _Clyburn_,24F.3d613,616(4thCir.1994);seealsoUnitedStates   v.Jones,185F.3d459,463(5thCir.1999)( Thequestionthata d  federalcourtmustaskwhenstateofficialssecureevidencetobe `  usedagainstadefendantaccusedofafederaloffenseiswhether   theactionsofthestateofficialsviolatedtheFourthAmendmentof h theUnitedStatesConstitution.(internalquotationsandcitation d omitted)). Theproductsofasearchconductedundertheauthority  ofavalidlyissuedstatewarrantarelawfullyobtainedforfederal l prosecutorialpurposesifthatwarrantsatisfiesconstitutional h requirementsanddoesnotcontraveneanyRule-embodiedpolicy  designedtoprotecttheintegrityofthefederalcourtsorto p  governtheconductoffederalofficers.UnitedStatesv._Mitro_, !l" 880F.2d1480,1485(1stCir.1989)(quotingUnitedStatesv. "$ Sellers,483F.2d37,43(5thCir.1973));seealsoUnitedStates t$& v.Crawford,657F.2d1041,1046(9thCir.1981)(holdingthatif  &p!( thesearchis federalincharacter,thenthelegalityofthe '#* searchshouldbeanalyzedinlightoffederalconstitutional x)$, requirementsandthoseprovisionsofRule41 designedtoprotect $+t&. theintegrityofthefederalcourtsortogoverntheconductof  federalofficers.(citationomitted)). \    ` TheFourthAmendmentitself containsnorequirements X aboutwhenthesearchorseizureistooccurortheduration.   UnitedStatesv.Gerber,994F.2d1556,155960(11thCir.1993). `  However, unreasonabledelayintheexecutionofawarrantthat  \  resultsinthelapseofprobablecausewillinvalidateawarrant.   UnitedStatesv.Marin_Buitrago_,734F.2d889,894(2dCir.1984). d  TherestrictionsinRule41 notonlyensurethatprobablecause `  continuestoexist,butalsothatitistheneutralmagistrate,not   theexecutingofficers,whodetermineswhetherprobablecause h continuestoexist.Id.Thepolicybehindthetendaytime d limitationinRule41istopreventtheexecutionofastale  warrant. Adelayinexecutingasearchwarrantmayrenderstale l theprobablecausefinding.UnitedStatesv.Gibson,123F.3d h 1121,1124(8thCir.1997).     ` AdelayinexecutionofthewarrantunderRule41does p  notrenderinadmissibleevidenceseized,absentashowingof !l" prejudicetothedefendantsresultingfromthedelay.SeeUnited "$ Statesv._Cafero_,473F.2d489,499(3dCir.1973).Courtshave t$& permittedsomedelayintheexecutionofsearchwarrantsinvolving  &p!( computersbecauseofthecomplexityofthesearch.See,e.g., '#* UnitedStatesv._Gorrell_,360F.Supp.2d48,55n.5(_D.D.C._Ԁ2004) x)$, (ten-monthdelayinprocessingofcomputerandcameraseized, $+t&. although lengthy, didnottakethedataoutsidethescopeofthe  warrantsuchthatitneedstobesuppressed);UnitedStatesv. \ TriumphCapitalGroup,Inc.,211_F.R.D._Ԁ31,66(D.Conn.2002) X ( [_C]omputer_Ԁsearchesarenot,andcannotbesubjecttoanyrigid   timelimitbecausetheymayinvolvemuchmoreinformationthanan `  ordinarydocumentsearch,morepreparationandagreaterdegreeof  \  careintheirexecution.).      ` Theprimaryquestioniswhether,underthepolicies d  embeddedinRule41,theoneyearextensionorderissuedbythe `  courtbecauseofabacklogincomputercrimesinvestigations   providedanexcessiveamountoftimetoallowforthesearchofa h computeralreadyinpolicecustodypursuanttoawarrant.Under d thecircumstances,thefivemonthdelaydidnotinvalidatethe  searchofappellantscomputerbecausethereisnoshowingthatthe l delaycausedalapseinprobablecause,thatitcreatedprejudice h tothedefendant,orthatfederalorstateofficersactedinbad  faithtocircumventfederalrequirements. p     ` Finally,Defendantarguesthatthesearchwarrant !l" violatedtheFourthAmendmentbecausetherequestforanextension "$ wasnotsupportedbyanaffidavit,butinsteadconsistedofaone t$& pagemotion.Insomecases,wherearequestforextension  &p!( implicatesthecontinuedexistenceofprobablecausetosearch,an '#* affidavitisnecessaryundertheFourthAmendment.See,e.g., x)$, UnitedStatesv._McElrath_,759F.Supp.1391,139596(D.Minn. $+t&. 1991)(allowingamotiontosuppressbecauseanofficersoughtand  obtainedanextensionofawarrantviaanunsworntelephonic \ communicationwhichunderminedtheearlierfindingofprobable X cause).Here,however,thecomputerwasalreadyinthe   governmentspossession,andtherequestforanextensiontoreview `  alargenumberofencryptedimagesbecauseofabacklogwaswholly  \  unrelatedtotheprobablecausedetermination.      V.CONCLUSION  d  ?   ` Becausethegoodfaithexceptionappliesandthedelayin ,|  theexecutionofthestatesearchdidnotprejudicedefendantor ( violatetheFourthAmendment,theconvictionis AFFIRMED .. XXX XV5.