Defendant Robert Robinson (“Robinson”) entered a conditional guilty plea to one count of possession of child pornography in violation of the Child Pornography Prevention Act, , 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(5)(B). Robinson preserved his objection to the district court’s denial of his motion to suppress all evidence seized frоm his residence on July 25, 2001 pursuant to a search warrant. Robinson argued that the warrant, which authorized the search for various items including computer equipment, camera equipment and visual depictions of juveniles, was issued on the basis of an affidavit which failed to support probable cause. Robinson also argued that the good faith exception could not save the search. He was sentenced to 27 months in prison and three years of supervised release, and he now appeals the suppression ruling. After careful review, we affirm the district court’s denial of the motion to suppress.
I. Background
A. Procedural History
On July 25, 2001, Waterville Police Department Detective David Caron (“Caron” or “Agent Caron”) applied for a warrant to search Robinson’s residence for evidence of possession of,sexually explicit material in violation of Maine state law. The warrant would authorize a search for vаrious items, including images of children, computer systems and camera equipment. 1 In support of the warrant application, Caron submitted a nine-page affidavit — described more fully below — detailing the information that led Caron to suspect that Robinson possessed child pornography.
Agent Caron presented the warrant affidavit to James Mitchell, a state prosecutor, who indicated to Caron that the affidavit appeared “fine.” Thereafter, Agent Caron presented the affidavit to a state of Maine district court judge. .
The judge did not issue the warrant after her initial review. Rather, she requested clarification of certain hearsay statements relevant to the location of Robinson’s computer. After speaking directly to the declarant, Agent Caron again sub *68 mitted the affidavit to the judge, who issued the warrant on July 25, 2001. That same day, Caron and other law enforcement officers exеcuted the warrant and seized several items from Robinson’s apartment.
On May 14, 2002, a federal grand jury issued a one-count indictment charging Robinson with possession of child pornography. Robinson was arrested and arraigned the same day.
Robinson moved to suppress all evidence seized pursuant to the wаrrant. On August 14, 2002, the magistrate judge held an evidentiary hearing on the motion. At the hearing, Robinson argued that the warrant affidavit did not establish probable cause to search Robinson’s apartment and that the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule should not be applied. Agent Caron testified regаrding the process through which he obtained the warrant, his law enforcement experience and his basis for believing Robinson was storing child pornography on his computer.
The magistrate judge recommended denial of Robinson’s motion, and on October 7, 2002, the district court issued an order denying suppression. Robinson entered a conditional guilty plea, preserving the suppression issue. On March 18, 2003, Robinson was sentenced to twenty-seven months of incarceration and three years of supervised release. This appeal followed.
B. The Warrant Affidavit
According to Agent Caron’s affidavit, on July 19, 2001, he received a phone call from a manager at Wal-Mart regarding sexually explicit film that had been dropped off for developing. Caron and another detective went to Wal-Mart and viewed the photos on a monitor. The photos showed what appeared to be two separate young girls. Two of the рhotographs depicted one of the two girls lying on her stomach wearing a top but no bottom, “her buttocks lifted slightly in the air, exposing her vagina.” No pubic hair was visible. The other photographs depicted the other female, later identified as twelve-year-old Randi Goldsmith (“Randi” or “Goldsmith”), sleeping on a bed fully clothed — five faceless photographs focused on her crotch and one of those showed her underpants. Two photographs showed Goldsmith sleeping with her tank top to the side, exposing her breasts.
Lori Cayford’s (“Cayford”) name appeared on the deposit envelopе for the film. At Caron’s request, a Wal-Mart employee called Cayford to pick up the film. When Cayford arrived to pick up the film, Caron recognized her as the woman shown with the exposed vagina in the photographs. Caron spoke with Cayford after she claimed the film, and he learned that she was Robinson’s 28-year-old girlfriend. When she was nine years old, Cayford suffered from a form of cancer that stunted her growth, making her appear much younger than her actual age. In response to Caron’s questions, Cayford identified the other female in the photographs as her cousin, Goldsmith. Cayford informed Car-on that she had taken the faceless photographs of Randi sleeping on the bed, but that Robinson must have taken the ones in which Goldsmith’s chest was exposed.
Detective Caron spoke with Goldsmith the next day. Goldsmith stated that she was unaware of the pictures taken while she slept. She also informed Caron that Cayford and Robinson had spoken to her the day before, after Caron had talked to Cayford, and they asked Goldsmith to tell Caron that she knew about and had authorized the photographs. Goldsmith also mentioned in that conversation that Robinson had a picture on his wall of a woman on a truck weаring a thong bikini. Robin *69 son had asked Goldsmith to pose like that for him, but she had declined.
Agent Caron also learned that Robinson spent a “great deal of time” on his home computer. Goldsmith stated that she had used the computer and had seen “hundreds of pornographic pictures” of adult women. On one oсcasion, she was using Robinson’s home computer and saw a “pornographic” computer image of young people standing on their hands, but she gave no further details except to say the girls’ chests were undeveloped and that neither the boys nor the girls had pubic ham.
Agent Caron also relatеd conversations he had with Randi Goldsmith’s parents and with Cayford’s aunt. Goldsmith’s mother took out a Temporary Restraining Order on behalf of Randi against Robinson. She explained in the narrative section of the Order that “I believe that he was going to scan it [the pictures] on his computer — He is always looking at XXX and child pornography.” Agent Caron was also told that Cayford had asked Robinson to move his computer out to a shed in back of the house. Cayford’s aunt complained that the phone line was always busy because Robinson was on the internet.
Prior to submitting his warrant application, Agent Caron spoke with Dеtective Alan Perkins, who is trained in and familiar with child abuse and exploitation investigations and has special knowledge about the use of computers in connection with pornographic images. Both Caron and Perkins agreed that the photos of Randi Goldsmith were not sexually explicit. Car-on beliеved that the photos were sexually suggestive, possession of which does not violate Maine law.
In his affidavit, Agent Caron concluded that Robinson’s premises “will contain the previously described items ... [which] are evidence of Possession of Sexually Explicit Material in violation of Title 17, Section 2924, a Clаss D crime.”
II. Analysis
Robinson argues that the underlying warrant affidavit failed to establish probable cause for the search of his premises for child pornography and that the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule, established in
United States v. Leon,
We need not determine whether the warrant affidavit presented a basis for probable cause since we believe that Agent Caron acted in objective good faith and suppression is inappropriate.
See id.
at 925,
This case falls well within the reach of the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule. “In the absence of an allegation that the magistrate abandoned his detached and neutral role, suppression is appropriate only if the officers were dishonest or reckless in preparing thеir affidavit or could not have harbored an objectively reasonable belief in the existence of probable cause.”
Leon,
There is no evidence that Agent Caron attempted to obtain a warrant through deceit or omission. No relevant information then available to Agent Caron was omitted from the warrant application.
See United States v. Brunette,
Robinson objects to the federal magistrate’s crediting the “elaborate steps” taken by Agent Caron to confirm his judgment regarding the existence of probable cause. The magistrate also noted that Carоn made no effort to “gild the lily” in presenting the facts to the state court judge. 2 We find these facts important in evaluating good faith. Agent Caron’s unwillingness to embellish the facts, his insistence on presenting the state court judge with all relevant information, including facts that worked against the government, and his efforts to validаte this conclusion by consulting others with greater expertise in dealing with child pornography investigations all bolster the conclusion that Car-on’s reliance on the issuance of the warrant was objectively reasonable.
We have not addressed whether the Maine state court judge erred in issuing a warrant to search Robinson’s home based on the affidavit. The legal insufficiency of an affidavit, though, is not always incompatible with a reasonable, well-trained officer’s reliance upon the ensuing warrant. Indeed, we are unaware of any case that addresses probable cause under сomparable circumstances. Agent Caron believed that the evidence in the aggregate gave probable cause to believe that Robinson was storing illegal images in his computer, and his warrant affidavit was far from “bare bones.”
See Leon,
Given that the issuing magistrate must consider the totality of the circumstances in reviewing an affidavit,
see Illinois v. Gates,
III. Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the district court’s denial of Robinson’s motion to suppress.
Affirmed.
Notes
. Agent Caron indicated that the property to be seized cоuld include
Computer images, photographs, movies, videotape, slides, and/or undeveloped film depicting juveniles dressed, nude and/or involved in sexually explicit conduct.
Camera equipment including but not limited to digital cameras, video cameras and monitors and items used to photograph, reсord, and/or display this material.
Computer system(s) and all related peripheral attachments including but not limited to modems, printers, keyboards, mouse, and monitor. Any electronic data storage devices including but not limited to hardware, software, diskettes, back up tapes, and CD-ROMS. Any input/output peripherals including but not limited to passwords, data security devices and related documentation.
Credit information including but not limited to credit cards, account numbers, billing statements and other correspondence from financial institutions which display personal account and or billing numbers, receipts and items showing onlinе purchases via the Internet.
Any and all items that would tend to establish the identity and age of any above descried [sic] juveniles.
Correspondences, cancelled mail, utility bills, and/or items of- evidence demonstrating dominion and control over the above-described items.
The Maine district court judge acceded to this request in full. Robinson has not challenged the particularity of the warrant.
. Agent Caron testified that although he believed he had the requisite level of probable cause to search, he decided against a consent search and opted instead in favor of the preferred mеthod of seeking a warrant. As his affidavit and testimony at the suppression hearing indicated, before he presented the application to the issuing state court judge Caron endeavored to validate his assessment of probable cause by consulting other people with greater expertise in the area — Perkins and Mitchell — both of whom agreed with Car-on's assessment.