NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 16 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 14-30138
Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 3:12-cr-00652-KI-1
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ROBERT PAUL PATTON,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Oregon
Garr M. King, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted May 5, 2016
Portland, Oregon
Before: TALLMAN and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges and BATTAGLIA, ** District
Judge.
Robert Patton entered a conditional guilty plea to one count of possession of
child pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2252A(a)(5)(B), (b)(2). He appeals
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except
as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The Honorable Anthony J. Battaglia, District Judge for the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of California, sitting by designation.
the district court’s denial of his motion to suppress images obtained from a search
of his electronic devices. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and affirm.
A warrant authorized the search for child pornography. Although Patton
concedes that the affidavit in support of the search warrant established probable
cause to search for evidence of sexual abuse, he argues it was insufficient to establish
probable cause to search for child pornography.
In Dougherty v. City of Covina, we held that an affidavit alleging molestation
of children coupled with the assertion that those who molest children are likely to
possess child pornography is insufficient to establish probable cause to search for
child pornography. 654 F.3d 892, 897-99 (9th Cir. 2011). But, we have expressly
left open the question whether an affidavit similar to the one here—which includes
allegations of child molestation and references to the suspect’s prior charges for sex
crimes against a minor and possession of sexual material involving a child—would
provide probable cause to search for child pornography. United States v. Needham,
718 F.3d 1190, 1192, 1195 & n.1 (9th Cir. 2013). The officers thus acted “‘in
objectively reasonable reliance’ on the warrant.” United States v. Underwood, 725
F.3d 1076, 1085 (9th Cir. 2013) (quoting United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897, 922
(1984)).
AFFIRMED.
2