T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on a nd i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by 9th C i r . R . 36- 3. NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T UN I T E D S T AT E S OF AME R I C A, P l ai nt i ff

- A pp el l ee , v. J OH N R OB E R T R I GB Y, D e f

e n d a n t - A p p e lla n t. N o. 10- 30172 D . C . N o. 2: 09 -c r- 00 17 4-JC C -1 ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe W e s t e rn D i s tr i c tof W a s hi ngt on J ohn C . C oughe nour , D i s tr i c tJ udge , P r e s i di ng A r gue d a nd S ubm i tt e d M a y 6, 2011 S e a tt l e , W a s hi ngt on B efo re: S C H R O E D E R , M cK E O W N , an d C A L L A H A N , C i rcu i tJu d g es. John R ob ertR i gb y app ea l s f rom the di stri ctcourt ’ s j ud gm enti n h i s c ri m i nal c a s e o n f e d e r a l c h ild p o rn o g r ap h y c h a r g e s . R ig b y c o n d itio n a lly p le a d e d g u ilty to th e c h a r g e s , b u t r e s e r v e d h is r ig h t to ap p e a l th e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s o r d e rd e n y in g h is m ot i on t o s uppr e s s e vi de nc e . W e r e vi e w de novo the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s rul i ng on the 

# FI LED JU N 03 2011 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS2

m ot i on t o sup pres s, as w el l as the di stri ctcourt ’ s det erm i nat i on re gardi ng an o v e rb r e a d th c h a lle n g e to th e w a rr a n t, s e e U ni te d State s v . A dj ani , 452 F . 3d 1140, 11 43 (9th C i r. 20 06 ), and w e r evi ew for c l ea r e rr or w hether the j ud ge w ho i ss ued the w a rr a ntha d a s ubs t a nt i a l ba s i s f orc onc l udi ng tha tpr obabl e c a us e e xi s t e d, se e U ni te d State s v . H

ay , 23 1 F . 3d 63 0, 63 4 n . 4 (9th C i r. 20 00 ). W e r evi ew for c l ea r e rr orthe di s tr i c tc our t ’ s f i ndi ngs r e ga r di ng om i s s i ons a nd m i s r e pr e s e nt a t i ons i n the a f f id a v it s u p p o r tin g th e w a rr a n t. Se e U ni te d State s v . D eL e on , 979 F . 2d 761, 763 ( 9 th C ir . 1 9 9 2 ) . W e h a v e ju r is d ic tio n p u r s u a n t to 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 9 1 a n d w e a f f ir m . T he part i es ar e f

am i l i arw i th the fa ctual backgrou nd and the fa ct s und er l yi ng ea ch c h a lle n g e a n d th u s w e d o n o t in c lu d e th e m h e r e . T he j udge w ho i s s ue d the w a rr a ntdi d notc l e a r l y e rri n de t e r m i ni ng tha tthe w a rr a ntw a s s uppor t e d by pr obabl e c a us e . T he i nf or m a t i on c ont a i ne d i n the a f f i d a v i ts u p p o r t i n g th e w a rr a n tw a s n o ts t a l e d u e t o th e u n i q u e n a tu r e o f th e c r i me a n d th e r e c e n c y o f

R ig b y ’s c o n ta c t w ith th e v ic tim . See U ni te d State s v . B ow m an , 2 1 5 F .3 d 9 5 1 , 9 6 4 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 0 ) ( “A s e a r c h w a rr a n t is n o t s ta le w h e r e th e r e is suff i ci entbasi s t o b el i eve, base d o n a cont i nu i ng patt ern o r other goo d rea sons, that the i t e m s t o be s e i z e d a r e s t i l l on the pr e m i s e s . ” ( i nt e rna l a l t e r a t i on a nd quot a t i on m a r k s o m itte d ) ) ; U

ni ted Stat es v. D ozi er , 844 F . 2d 701, 707 ( 9th C i r . 1988) ( “ T he m e r e l aps e of

s ubs t a nt i a l a m ount s of

t i m e i s notc ontr ol l i ng i n a que s t i on of3

st al enes s. ”) . F urther, the w arra ntw as suff i ci ent l y l i nk ed t o the re si dence thatw as se ar ched and “probabl e c ause exi st [e d] t o b el i eve thatan offe nse ha[ d] been com m i tt ed and thati t em s r el at ed t o thatoffe nse, such as frui t s of the cr i m e, w [oul d] be foun d o n the prem i se s. ” U ni te d State s v . R abe , 848 F . 2d 994, 997 (9th C i r. 19 88 ). N o rw a s th e w a rr a n t f

a ta lly o v e rb r o a d . N o t a ll o f R ig b y ’s o v e rb r e a d th a r g u m e n ts a r e p r o p e r ly b e f o r e th is c o u r t. See U

n ite d S ta te s v . Mu r illo , 288 F . 3d 1126, 1135 ( 9th C i r . 2002) ( e xpl a i ni ng tha ta r gum e nt s notf i r s tr a i s e d be f

or e the d is tr ic t c o u r t in a m o tio n to s u p p r e s s a r e w a iv e d ) . A s to R ig b y ’s a r g u m e n ts r ig h tly be f or e us , the a f

f i da vi tc r e a t e d pr obabl e c a us e t o s e a r c h the i t e m s l i s t e d i n the w a rr a n t. Se e M

ar y land v . G ar r is on , 4 8 0 U .S . 7 9 , 8 4 ( 1 9 8 7 ) ( e x p la in in g th a t F o u r th A m e ndm e ntr e qui r e s tha ta w a rr a ntbe l i m i t e d “ t o the s pe c i f i c a r e a s a nd thi ngs f

or w hi ch there i s probabl e c ause t o sea rc h”). In the al t ernat i ve, even i f the i ss ui ng j ud ge cl ea rl y e rr ed i n d et erm i ni ng that p r o b ab le c a u s e s u p p o r te d th e w a rr a n t, th e g o o d f a ith e x c e p tio n ap p lie s . See U ni ted State s v . L e on , 46 8 U . S . 89 7, 92 2 (19 84 ) ( ho l di ng supp re ss i on of “ evi dence ob t ai ned i n o bj ec t i vel y r ea sonabl e r el i ance on a s ub se qu ent l y i nv al i dat ed se ar ch w arra nt ” i s notre qu i re d).4

F i na l l y , the di s tr i c tc our tdi d note rri n de t e r m i ni ng tha tthe of f i c e rdi d not s ubm i ta n a f

f i da vi ttha tc ont a i ne d “ de l i be r a t e f a l s e hood orr e c kl e s s di s r e ga r d f or the truth. ” Fra n ks v. D ela w a re , 4 3 8 U .S . 1 5 4 , 1 7 1 ( 1 9 7 8 ) ; see a l so U ni ted Stat es v . G our de , 4 4 0 F .3 d 1 0 6 5 , 1 0 7 3 n .5 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ) ( e n b a n c ) ( “[ F ]a ilu r e to in v e s tig a te f

u lly is n o t e v id e n c e o f

a n a f f ia n t’s r e c k le s s d is r e g a r d f o rth e tru th .” (i nt ernal qu ot at i on m arks om i tt ed)) . AF F I RME D.