T h e H on or abl e Joh n R. Adams , U n i t ed St at es D i st ri ct J ud ge f or t h e N or t h er n di s t r i ct of O h i o, s i t t i n g by * d esi gnat i o n.

A s p a rt o f t h e p le a a g re e m e n t, the U n ited S ta te s d ism isse d C o u n t T w o o f t h e ind ic tm e n t. 1 NO T REC OM M EN DE D F OR F UL L- TEX T P UB LIC AT ION F ile Nam e: 10a0491n.06 No. 09-1072 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT
UNI TED STATES OF AMERI CA, Plaintiff-Appellee , v. RI CHARD L AYNE LAB EL L E, De fe nd ant- Ap pe lla

nt. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON AP P EAL FROM THE UN I TE D ST AT ES D I STR I CT CO UR T F OR

TH E E AST ERN DI STRI CT OF MI CHI GAN

OPI NI ON

BEF ORE: BOG GS and NORRI S, Ci rcuit Judges, AD AMS, District J udg e. * ALAN E. NORRIS, Circuit Judge. A f t e r h i s ar r e s tf o r p o s s e s s i o no f

c h i l d p o r n o g r a p h y, de fe nd ant R ic ha

rd L ay ne L a B e lle fi le d tw o mo tio ns se e kin gto s up pr e ss e vid e nc e se ize d fr om h is duffe l bagand his re s i d en ce on Ma y 1, 2007, and May

10, 2007, respe ctively . The district cour t denied both motions. Subsequently , defe ndant enter ed into a plea ag ree ment that prese rved his right to ap pe a l th e d i s tr i c tc o urt ’ s d e c i s i o n s . P ur s u an tt o th ata g r e e m e n t , d e f e n d an tp l e a d e d

g u i l ty to Count O ne of

a tw o- c ount i nd ic tme nt c ha rg ing him wi th p os se ssi on of chi ld p or no g ra phy in vio latio n o f 1 8 U .S. C. § 22 52 A( a )( 5) (B ). De fe nd ant’ s a pp e a l is no w b e fo re us . We a ff ir m. 1No. 09-1072

Un ite d S tates v . La be lle

- 2 - I. At a p p r o xim ate ly

2 :0 0 a . m. o nM ay

1 , 2 0 0 7 , A u

b ur nH il ls , M ic h ig anp o li c e o f f ic e r Todd Ra sk in w a s o n p atr ol i n a n in du str ia l are a

a lon gWal ton

B ou le va rd , on th e wes t side of

Inte rs tate Hig hway I -75. He observe d defe ndant, on foot, in the rain, wea ring no jacke t or ot her rain g ear , and

car rying a duffe l bag . Be cause Offic er Raskin kne w t h e ar ea t o b e prone to criminal ac tivity and ty pic a lly fr e e of pe de str ian tra ff

ic at ni g ht, he e xite d h is p oli c e c ru ise r a nd a pp ro a c he d d e fe nd ant t o inquire about de fenda

nt’s identity

and re ason fo r h i s prese nce in that pa rt of town at that time of night. As O ffice r Raskin approa ched, de fenda nt paused to talk. In response to Office r R askins’ questions , defe ndant claimed that he wa s headinghome from Pontiac, Michig an, and that he was on foot beca use he did not have a

car or a va lid driver’s lice nse. He a lso informed Off

icer Raskin tha t t h e du ff

el bag c ontained clothingbut declined to allow inspection of its c ontents. After this e x chang e, which lasted approximately three minutes, defenda nt depar ted and Of

fice r Raskin retur

ned to his cruiser

. Using the name a

nd date of

birth defe ndant had pr ovided duringthe investig atory stop, Of fi c e r R a sk in c on du c te d mul tip le data ba se se arc he s. Th os e se arc he s re tur ne d no matc hin gre c or ds

. Concluding that defe ndant had provided false i nformation about his identity , Offic er Raskin de cided to investigate furthe r. He enlisted the assistance of Serg eant Ry an Ga g non, who locate d defe ndant on the ea st side o f I -75. De fenda nt had cr ossed eig ht lanes of hig hway on foot and wa s scurry

ing on his hands and knee s in waist-hig h veg etation up a n em b an k m ent on t he ea st side of I -75 whe n Serg eant Ga g non sp o t t ed him . Serg eant Ga g non caught and detaine d defe ndant af ter de fenda

nt ignor ed orde rs to stop.No. 09-1072

Un ite d S tates v . La be lle

- 3 - By this ti me, def

endant wa s no longe r ca

rry ing the duffe l bag . In response to Serg eant Gagnon’s inquiry

about the bag , defe ndant stated, “ it’s down there ”– ref err ing to the highway

–and added, “ Idon’t know.” Ser g eant Ga g non located a duffe l ba gon the weste rn emba nkment of I -75. Offic er Raskin identified it as the one t h at d efendant wa s car rying dur ing the initial investi g atory stop. Offic er Raskin sea rche d the contents of the bagand discove red a notebook and binder whic h contained nume rous pornog raphic imag es, som e of which appe are d to involve children. B ased upon his ini tia l se arc h of the c on te nts , he se ize d the ba g fo r a mor e de ta ile d inve sti g atio n. Th e c on te nts
wer e subseque ntly

examined by

office rs traine d to investigate sexual crimes ag ainst children. Auburn Hills Police Detec tive Ron Tuski assumed the subsequent investi g ation of the c ase. Hi s inve sti g atio n r e ve a le d th at de fe nd ant h a d p ri or c onvic tio ns fo r p os se ssi on of c hil d s e xua lly abusive mate rial and the use of a computer to co m m i t a cr i me. Dete ctive Tuski then under took a

m o re d et ai l eds ea rc ho f t h e c o n t en t s o f t h e n o t eb o o k an d th e b i n d er fo un d i n d ef

en d an t ’s d

u ff el b ag. De te c tiv e Tu sk i disc ov e re d that the no te bo ok c on ta ine d, amon g oth e r p or no g ra ph ic ima g e s, two photogr aphs of pr e-pube scent fe males posingnude with nude adult fema les. Next to one of the ph oto g ra ph s w a s a se xua lly g ra ph ic , h and

writte n n ote . T he bin de r c on ta ine d, amon goth e r i te ms,
a dv e rt ise me nt i ma g e s o f p re -p ub e sc e nt c hil dr e n to wh ic h im a g e s of ad ult g e nit a lia and

a du lt b re a sts had bee n aff

ix ed. Also included in the binde r we re ne wspape r ar t icles about attempted and completed c hild abductions; newspape r phot og raphs of elementa ry , middle school, and hig h schoolNo. 09-1072

Un ite d S tates v . La be lle

Some of t h e cl i ppi n g s h ad bee n cu t t o r emov e t h e h ea ds of t h e s u bj ec t s . T h e h ea ds h ad t h en be en pa s t ed on 2 sep ara t e p ag es a nd att ac he d t o p o rno gra p hic ad ult i m ag es.

T h er ea f t er , de f en dan t e n t er ed i n t o a con di t i on al pl ea ag r ee men t
. H e pl ea ded g u i l t y t o on e cou n t of pos s es s i on 3 o f ch ild p o rn o g ra p h y a n d w a s se n te n c e d to the sta tuto ry m a n d a to ry m inim u m o f 1 2 0 m o n ths o f i m p riso n m e n t. - 4 - children w ith their names, addresses, and phone number s written in the marg ins; and information 2

and ins tr uc tio ns fo r c re atin gvid e o- DV D i ma g e s. Upon completing h i s i nvestig ation, Detec tive Tuski prepa red a n aff idavit expl ainingthe g rounds for pr obable c ause to sea rch defenda

nt’s residenc e for

evidenc e that def

endant possesse d or produc ed child sexually abusive material. A m ag istrate found probable c ause a nd issued a sea

rch

war rant. The sear ch w ar ra n t wa s ex ecute d at def endant’ s residenc e on May 10, 2007. Evidence

se ize d f ro m th at se arc h in c lud e d c hil d p or no g ra phy in d ig ita l and

pr int fo rm . A f e d e r a l g r an d j ur

y i n d i c t e d d e f

e n d an t o ntw o c o un t s o f

p o s s e s s i o no f

c h i l d p o r n o g r a p h y. Duringpre- trial proce edings , d ef endant filed two motions t o suppress evide nce. T he first soug ht suppression of e vidence seized from t he warra ntless sear ch of his duffe l bag on May 1, 2007. The second sought suppression of evide nce se ized from his r es i d en ce pursuant to the execution of the

sear ch wa rra nt on May

10, 2007. After a hea ringon the first motion, the United States District Court for the Ea stern District of Michig an rule d that the contents of the duffe l bagwer e admissible and de nied the motion on May 2, 20 08 . T he dis tr ic t c ourt su bs e qu e ntl y de nie d the se c on d moti on on Au g us t 13 , 2 00 8, wi tho ut a he ari ng . De fe nd ant a

pp e a ls b oth

ru lin g s o n th e g ro un d th at th e se arc he s and se izur e s v iol ate d h is 3 F ourt h A me ndme nt r ig hts

.No. 09-1072

Un ite d S tates v . La be lle

- 5 - II. We revie w the district court’s f actua l findings f

or cle ar e rror

and its application of law de

novo . United States v. Loney , 331 F.3d 516, 5 2 0 (6th Cir. 2003). In revie winga district cour t’s de nia l of a mot ion to s up pr e ss, we c on sid e r the e vid e nc e in a light m os t f

avo ra ble to t he g ov e rnme nt. Id

. 1. Motion to S uppress Evidenc e Seized from De fenda nt’s Duffe l Ba g The F ourth Amendment prote cts citizens ag ainst unrea sonable sea rche s and seiz ures by

the g overnme nt. U.S. Const . amend. IV. Howeve r, to asser t protection ag ainst unrea sonable sea rch a nd

se izur e un de r t

he F ourt h A me ndme nt, a

de fe nd ant m us t sh owthat he po sse sse d a “ le g iti mate expectation of privacy in the i nvaded [ proper ty ].” Ra k as v . I lli no is , 439 U.S. 128, 143 (1978). A defe ndant forf

eits any leg itimate ex p ec t at i o n of privac y he mig ht have in a pr operty when he ab an d o n s t h at prope rty
. Abel v. U nited States , 3 6 2 U
. S. 2 1 7 , 2 4 0

- 4 1 ( 1 9 6 0 )

. “ [T ]h e n o ti o n of ‘aban d o n m en t ’ t urns upon whethe r a pe rson ca n claim a c ontinuing, leg itimate expectation of privac y in the i tem at i ssue.” United States v. Robinson , 390 F.3d 853, 873 (6th Cir. 2004). Whether a def en d an t a b an d o n e d th e inv a d e d p r o p e rty is a qu e s ti o n o f inte n t an d ma y b e in f e r r e d f r om the defe ndant’s st atements, conduct, and other objective indicia. Un ite d Sta te s v . Co lbe rt , 474 F.2d 174, 176 (5th Cir. 1973). In denying defe ndant’s motion to s uppress e vidence seized from his duffe l bag , the district court de termined that his Four th Amendment rig hts were not infring ed. Althoug h defe ndant ra ised

no challeng e in the proce eding s below to the constitutionalit y of his init ial encounte r with Off icer Ra sk in ( no r d oe s he do so in this a pp e a l) , the dis tr ic t court ne ve rt he le ss fi rs t exam ine d th e pr op ri e tyNo. 09-1072

Un ite d S tates v . La be lle

T he d i st ri ct co urt al so o b ser ved t hat ev e n i f t he i ni t i al co nt act had be en unreasonab l e, i t did no t l ead t o t he 4 s ei zur e of

t he duf f el bag bec aus e a t t he concl us i on of t he enc ount er , “ [ d]ef

endan t was comp l et el y f r ee t o go, an d i ndeed l ef t wi t h t he duf

f el bag i n h i s poss es s i on. ” Un ited S ta te s v . L a B e lle , No
. 0 7

- C R

- 2 0 6 8 , 2 0 0 8 W L 1 9 3 1 8 7 5 , a t * 3 ( E. D. M i ch. M ay 2 , 20 0 8 ).

O n a pp eal , def

endan t does not ch al l eng e t he di s t r i ct cour t ’ s det er mi nat i on t hat he aban do ned h i s duf f el bag 5 as a mat t er of

l aw . - 6 - of that enc ounter a

nd conclude d that it passed consti tutional muster. The district cour t then assessed 4 the le g a lity of the se arc h an d sei zur e of the du ff e l bag

. Re lyingon

tw o a ba nd onme nt c a se s f

ro m th is circ uit, Un ite d S

tates v . Co lli

s , 766 F.2d 219 ( 6th Cir. 1985), and Un ite d Sta te s v . O swa ld , 783 F.2d 663 (6th Cir. 1986), the district cour t fo u n d t h at def

endant’ s act of disc ardingthe duffe l bagin a public, wooded a

rea next t o the hig hway

befor e he c rossed I -75, couple d with hi s ef fort to eva de p o l i ce d et ec t i o n , i n d i ca t edan i n t en tt o ab an d o nth e b ag. On appe al, def

endant c oncede s that Offic er Raskin committed no constitutional violation by approa chinghim and initiating a discussion. He contends, howe ver, that the sear ch and se izure of his duffel ba gwas unc onstitut ional. Def endant’ s argument befor e the district cour t was fr amed a s a fa irly broad a ss er t i o n : that the police ha d no basis for se izi ngand sea rchinghis duffel ba g . On appea l, he offe rs more pa rticularized support for this broad assertion. In his view, once the initial

e nc ounte r t e rm inate d, law e nf or c e me nt of

fi c ia ls ha d no le g a l g ro un ds to c on tin ue inv e sti g atin ghim , surv e ill inghis a c tiv iti e s, or sto pp inghim a se c on d time

. State d d if fe re ntl y , d e fe nd ant’ s p os iti on is 5 th at O f f ic e r Ra s k in w a s r e qu ir e d to a c c e p t, w it h o u t qu e s ti o n , d e f

e n d an t’ s p r o f

f e r e d id e n ti ty

and explanation for his prese nce, a t 2:00 a.m., on foot, car

rying a duffe l bag , in an industrial are a of the city that had g ener ated some criminal activity

. As the sole basis for this contention, def endant r elies

on c a se law wh ic h state s that g ivi ng law e nf or c e me nt o ff

ic ia ls a fa lse name is n ot a

c ri min a l of

fe ns eNo. 09-1072

Un ite d S tates v . La be lle

At or al a r g u men t , de f

en dan t ’ s c ou n s el a l s o di r ec t ed u s t o Uni t ed St at es v. See , 57 4 F.3d 30 9 (6t h C i r. 20 0 9 ), 6 as s up p o rt f

o r hi s cl ai m t hat O f

f i cer R aski n had no l egal b asi s f o r searchi ng and sei zi ng t he d uf f el b ag. I n s o do i ng, he argues t hat O f

f i cer R aski n l acked aut ho ri t y t o co nd uct an i nvest i gat o ry s t o p . I n See , we f o und t hat a l aw enf

o rcem ent o ff ic e r e ff e c te d a n un la w ful T

erry s t op by us i ng hi s pol i ce cr ui s er t o bl ock a s us pect ’ s ve hi cl e i n a par ki ng l ot l ocat ed i n a high-crim e are a l ate at n i gh t w hil e he d eterm i ne d the id en t i t y o f the o cc up an t s a nd m aintained the status q uo b ec au se t he “ cont ext ual f

act ors of t i me and t he hi gh

- cr i me s t at us of t he ar ea, ” t oget her wi t h f act ors t hat ar e di s s i mi l ar t o t hi s ca s e, faile d to e sta b lish r e a so n a b le su sp ic io n o f cr im ina l ac tivity. I d. a t 3 1 3 -1 4

. See is u n a v a ili n g fo r se v e ra l re a so n s. F irst, a s n o te d a b o v e , d e fen d a n t ha s c o n c e d e d tha t t h e re w a s n o thin g im p ro p e r a b o u t O ff ic e r R a sk in’s in iti a l en c o u n te r w ith def en dan t
. Se con d, de f

en dan t f ai l ed t o a r g u e bel ow t h at t h e i n i t i al e n cou n t er c on s t i t u t ed an i mpr oper i n v es t i g at or y s t op a n d ha s the re fo re w a ive d tha t ar g u m e n t o n a p p e a l. See Uni t ed St at es v . Sc ar bor ough , 43 F. 3d 1021, 1025 ( 6t h Ci r . 1994) ( “ C ons t i t ut i onal object i ons ‘ t hat appear f or t he f i r s t t i me on appeal ar e concl us i vel y deemed t o be w ai ved, wi t h t he ef f ect t hat [t he ap p el l at e co urt i s] de p ri ved of juri sdi ct i o n. ’ ”) ( q uo t i ng Uni t ed St at es v . Cr i s m on , 9 0 5 F.2d 96 6 , 96 9 (6t h C i r. 19 90 ) )

. T hi r d, al t houg h t he di s t r i ct cour t t r eat ed t he i ni t i al i nt er act i on as a T erry sto p , w h ic h w o u ld re q u ire a re a so n a b le su sp ic io n o f ar ticu la b le c rim ina l ac tivity, s ee T e rry v . O h io , 3 9 2 U .S

. 1 , 2 1 (1 9 6 8 ), O ff ic e r R a sk in’s in iti a l co n ta c t with def endan t i s mo r e appropri at el y cha r act er i zed as a cons ens ual enc ount er i n t hat O f f i cer Rask i n i n n o way cons t r ai ned d ef end ant ’ s m o vem ent s and t he co nt act co nsi st ed m erel y of aski ng a s eri es of que st i o ns, f

i rs t co ncerni ng de f

e n d a n t’s w e ll- b e ing , t h e n c o n c e rn ing his a c tivities a n d id e n tit y. See Uni t ed St at es v. F ost er , 376 F. 3d 577, 584 ( 6t h Ci r . 2004) (l aw enf o rcem ent off

i cer’ s i nq ui ry ab o ut act i vi t i es and i d ent i t y d o es no t i m p l i cat e t he Fo urt h A m end m ent ) ( ci t i ng H i i bel v. Sixt h Jud i ci al D i s t
. Co urt of Nev. , 5 4 2 U
. S. 1 7 7 , 1 8 5 (20 0 4 ))

. U nl i ke t he o ccup ant s o f t he b l o cked aut o m o b i l e i n See , a reasonab l e p ers o n i n d ef end ant ’ s p o si t i o n wo ul d have f el t f ree t o l eave. Indeed , t he i nt ervi ew t erm i nat ed and de f end ant wal ked a way s hor t l y af t er he r ef

us ed acc es s t o hi s duf

f el bag. B eca us e t he cons ens ual en count er i ni t i at ed by O f f i cer R a sk in n e v e r rip e n e d into a n inv e stiga to ry T erry s t op , t he r eas onabl e s us pi ci on i nqui r y i s not t r i gg er ed, an d, t her ef ore, t he f act o rs i d ent i f

i ed i n See a s ins u ff

ic ie n t t o e sta b lish r e a so n a b le su sp ic io n a re e x tra n e o u s to the issu e s b e fo re us .

- 7 - under Michig an law a

nd that o n e cannot be compelled to answ er a law enf orce ment office r’s qu e sti on s. 6 Def endant wa s well within his rights to ref use conse nt to searc h his duffel ba gduringthe ini tia l sto p. Af

te r de fe nd ant re fu se d c on se nt to se arc h his ba g , Of fi c e r Ra sk in ma de no ef

for t to detain him and the inter

view ende d. Howeve r, Off icer Raskin was not prec luded from c onducting fo llo w- up inv e sti g atio n o f t he name that de fe nd ant prov ide d, no r w a s h e re qu ir e d to c e a se
surv e ill anc e of

de fe nd ant’ s a c tiv iti e s. Almost im mediately

afte r the intervie w ende d, defe ndan t d i s carded the duf fel ba gin a

wo oded area on the we st s ide of Inte rs tate 75 , c ro sse d th e e ig ht- lane highw ay , a nd atte mpt e d to evade further

contac t with the police eve n when or dere d to stop. On t hese facts, ne ither the sea rchNo. 09-1072

Un ite d S tates v . La be lle

W e co ns i der def

endan t ’ s ar gu ment conc er ni ng t he l ega l i t y of hi s det ent i on by O f

f i cer G agn on onl y as an 7 a n c ill a ry f

a c to r re la ting to the o ff ic e rs ’ i n v e stiga tio n a n d su rv e ill a n c e o f d e fen d a n t an d the ir se a rc h a n d se iz u re o f his du f f el ba g . T o t h e e x t en t t h at def en dan t ’ s ar g u men t r eg ar di n g t h e l ac k of l eg al ba s i s f

or h i s de t en t i on by O f

f i ce r G ag n on seeks t o ass ert a separat e and i nd ep end ent ground f o r ap p eal , we no t e t hat he did no t rai se t hi s i ss ue b el o w. I t i s t heref o re n o t p ro p e rly b e fo re us a n d w e d o no t ad d re ss it. See Scar bor ough , 43 F. 3d at 102 5 (f ai l ur e t o ra i s e c ons t i t ut i onal o b ject i o n be l o w o p erat es as wai ver of ob ject i o n on ap p eal ).

- 8 - and seizure of

the duffe l bagnor the stop of defendant made by Offic er Gag non at Off icer Raskin’s be he st w a s c on sti tut ion a lly inf ir m. Ac c or din g ly , th e dis tr ic t c ourt c or re c tly de nie d th e mot ion

to 7 suppress evide nce se ized from defe ndant’s duff el bagon May

1, 2007. 2. Motion to S uppress Evidenc e Seized from De fenda nt’s Residence Pursuant to Ex ecution of Sear ch Warra

nt Th e F ourt

h Am end ment

re qu ir e s th at a

se arc h w arr ant b e su

pp or te d b y an a ff ida vit establishing pr obable cause and that the aff idavit se t f

orth with pa

rticularity a descr iption of the place to b e se arc he d a

nd the pe rs on s o r thi ng s to be se ize d. U. S. Cons t. am e nd . IV. To e sta bli shpr ob a

ble

cause , the af

fidavit must c ontain “par

ticularized fac ts de monstrating ‘a f air proba bility that evidenc e of a c rime will be located on the pre mises of the propose d sear ch.’” United States v. Mc Phearson , 4 6 9 F. 3 d 5 1 8 , 5 2 4 (6 thC i r. 2 0 0 6 ) ( qu o t i n g United State s v. F r a z ier , 423 F.3d 526, 531 ( 6th Cir. 2005)). As we have previously observe d, this requires a

“‘ne x us betwee n the place to be sea rche d and the evidenc e soug ht.’” United States v. Carpenter , 360 F.3d 591, 594 ( 6th Cir. 2004) (en ba nc) (qu o t i n g Un ite d S

tates v . V an Sh utte rs , 163 F.3d 331, 336- 37 (6th Cir. 1998)). On re view, issuance of a w arr ant w i l l be sustained whe re the issuing “ma g istrate had a substantial basis for findingthat the af fidavit established proba

ble ca use to believe that the evidenc e would be found at the place cited.” United States v. Loggins , 7 7 7 F
. 2 d 3 3 6 , 3 3 8 ( 6 thC i r . 1 9 8 5 )

. InNo. 09-1072

Un ite d S tates v . La be lle

D ef endan t pl eaded no cont es t i n 20 04 t o t hr ee count s of poss es s i on of

ch i l d s exu al l y abus i ve mat er i al an d t hr ee 8 count s of

us e of a c om put er t o com mi t cr i me. - 9 - issuing a war

rant, the mag istrate mus t have “ perf orm[ed] his neutral and de tache d function and not

serve [d] mere ly as a rubber stamp for the police .” McPhe arson , 469 F.3d at 524 (internal c itations and qu o tati o n ma

r k s o mi tt e d )

. N e v e rth e le s s , r e v ie w in g c o urts ar e to a c c o r d g r e at d e f e renc e to a mag istrate’s pr obable c ause de termination. Illinois v. Gates , 462 U.S. 213, 236 (1983). Her e, the district c ourt conclude d that the aff idavit sw orn by Detec tive Tuski w as suffic ient to establish probable c ause f or the searc h of defendant’ s residenc e and the seizure of the e vidence there from. On a

ppeal, de fenda

nt contends th at the af

fidavit was ove rly

broad in its use of “boilerplate” languag e and that it failed to relate the te rm “pre fer ential child molester” to defe ndant in a ny wa y . We a g re e wi th t

he dis tr ic t c ourt
. Detec tive Tuski’s aff

idavit provides an e x tensive ar ray of p articula

rized fac ts, thereby meetingthe dictates of M c P h e r son . Fi rs t , the af

fidavit outlines defe ndant’s prior c onvictions for possession of child sexually abusive mate rial and use of a c omputer to commit crime. It expl ains in detail the under lying c ircumstance s leading to those convictions, some of which c ircumstance s bear striking sim ilarity to this action. For example, para g raph four of the a ffidavit explains that as 8 pa rt of th e inv e sti g atio n r e su lti ngin t he pr ior c ri min a l c onvic tio ns , d e fe nd ant w a s f ound in p o s s es sion of sever al computer disks and a notebook c ontaining ne wspape r clipping s containing ima g e s o f c hil dr e n, te e na g e rs , a nd y ounga du lts and

po rn og ra

ph ic image s o f a du lt f

e ma le s. Simi larly , in para g raphs se ven throug h nine, the af fidavit provides a

detailed de scription of the underlying f

acts lea ding to de fenda

nt’s arr est in this action. The af fidavit notes that defe ndant wasNo. 09-1072

Un ite d S tates v . La be lle

- 10 - appre hended w ith a notebook containing a collection of numerous pornog raphic imag es, including depictions of nude minor f emales, and a binder containingimag es of pr epubesc ent childre n to which imag es of a dult ge nitali a h ad b ee n aff ix ed. The aff

idavit states that some of the mate rials in the binder, includingnewspa p er articles with attached por nog raphic imag es and vulg ar written statements, dated ba ck as f ar a s 2002. The binder

als o co n t ai n ed i nstructions on how to cre ate a computer vide o-DVD
. Second, para g raph ten of the aff idavit inc ludes a descr iption of the methods an dprac tices used by “pre fer ential molesters” for maintainingtheir collections of child pornog raphy

. Acc ording to the aff idavit, the ty

pical pattern of a pre fer ential molester is to kee p a collec tion for y ear s in a neat

and or de rl y mann e r, sto ri ng it in c omp ute rs , p ho to a lbums, bin de rs , d a ir ie s, or oth e r s imi lar m e dia

and c on sta ntl y a dd ingto i t. Finally , in para g raph twe lve, the af fidavit i n co rp o rates the information set for th in the previous par ag raphs to conc lude: [t ]hat due to the above information and investig ation, including but not limited to the pr e vio us po lic e re po rt s a s d oc ume nte d b y the Mic hig an St ate Pol ic e , th at th e re is sufficie nt evidence lear

ned that Richar d L aB elle has a pattern of

ill i cit behavior inv olv ingthe Pos se ssi on

and /or Pr od uc tio n o f C hil d Se xua lly

Ab us ive Mate ri a ls. Gi ve n the de sc ri pti on of de fe nd ant’ s pr ior c ri min a l his tor y inv olv ing the po sse ssi on of chi ld pornog raphy

and the use of a c omputer t o commit a crime, the descr iption of the collection of pornog raphy

containingimag es of c hildren found in his duffe l bag , the explanation of the patter ns and pra ctices use d by

pref ere ntial molesters t o m aint ain their pornographic collections, and the

ave rm e nt b y

De te c tiv e Tu sk i in

pa ra g ra phtw e lve that the fa c ts p re vio us ly se t f or th i n th e a ff

ida vitNo. 09-1072

Un ite d S tates v . La be lle

- 11 - indicate that de fenda

nt has a pattern of illicit behavior involving the posse ssion and/or production of child pornography , def endant’ s assertion that the a ffidavit wa s overly broad or failed to link de fe nd ant t o th e c ha

ra c te ri sti c s o f a

pr e fe re nti a l mo le ste r l a c ks me ri t. Also lacking merit is defe ndant’s argument that the affidavit’s failure t o label def endant a s a “pr efe rential c hild molester” re nders ba seless De tective Tuski’s c onclusion t h at def endant wa s li k e ly to h av e c h il d p o r

n o g r a p h y in h is h o me . G e n e r ati n g an d c o mp il in g th e c o n te nts of the pornog raphic collection found in defe ndant’s duff el bag require d the use of a

computer. In addition, the binder c ontaini n g ch i l d pornog raphic imag es also conta ined instructions for usinga computer to cre ate a video-DV D. These fac ts, in addition t o defe ndant’s pre vious convictions for possession of child sexually

abusive mate rial a n d u s e o f a c omputer to commit a crime a nd the nee d for a computer to have a f

ix ed base , make it re asonable to con cl u d e t h at pol ice would f ind evidence of child pornog raphy

in de fenda

nt’s residenc e. Acc ording ly , the aff idavit adequately

demonstrates the nexus required be tween the place to be sea rche d and the e vidence soug ht. See Carpenter , 360 F.3d at 594. We affir

m the district court’s denial of defendant’ s motion t o suppress evide nce se ized from his residenc e on May

10, 2007. III . The district cour

t’s order s denying de fenda nt’s motions t o suppress ar e affir m e d.