require that the search be necessary to confirm the suspicion of impermissible activity, or that it cease once the suspicion has been confirmed.” United States v. Conway, 122 F.3d 841, 843 (9th Cir.1997). The district court did not err when it denied the motion to suppress based on Lee’s contention that the warrant lacked probable cause. We express no opinion on whether the warrant application established probable cause, although two of our recent decisions suggest that it was sufficient. See United States v. Hill, 459 F.3d 966 (9th Cir.2006); United States v. Battershell, 457 F.3d 1048 (9th Cir.2006). We instead hold that it is clear in this case that the officers relied on the warrant in good faith. See United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897, 926, 104 S.Ct. 3405, 82 L.Ed.2d 677 (1984) (<HOLDING>). Lee also challenges the sufficiency of the
holding that a warrant issued by a neutral magistrate creates presumption that officers belief in probable cause was objectively reasonable holding that evidence obtained in objectively reasonable reliance on a subsequently invalidated search warrant is not barred by the exclusionary rule holding exclusionary rule inapplicable to evidence obtained by police officers acting in reasonable reliance on search warrant later held invalid holding that evidence should not be suppressed if police officers acted in reasonable reliance on a search warrant issued by a detached and neutral magistrate holding that the fourth amendment exclusionary rule should not bar the use of evidence obtained by police officers acting in good faith and with reasonable reliance on a facially valid search warrant