
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Robert Paul PATTON, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 14-30138.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Argued and Submitted May 5, 2016.
    Filed May 16, 2016.
    Gary Y. Sussman, Assistant U.S., Kelly A. Zusman, Assistant U.S., DOJ-USAO, Portland, OR, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Whitney P. Boise, Celia A. Howes, Hoe-vet Olson Howes, PC, Portland, OR, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: TALLMAN and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges and BATTAGLIA, District Judge.
    
      
       The Honorable Anthony J. Battaglia, District Judge for the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, sitting by designation.
    
   MEMORANDUM

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 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, 104 S.Ct. 3430, 82 L.Ed.2d 677 (1984)).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
     