The record also demonstrates that the forensic search of Wolfs computer was conducted by an offsite forensic technician who had the training and expertise necessary to complete the search of Wolfs computer. Although the forensic report indicated that a search of Wolfs computer was not conducted until October, probable cause to search the computer’s hard drive was not affected by the delay. Probable cause to search the hard drive did not dissipate during the month and a half the computer sat in the evidence locker. In addition, Wolf was not prejudiced by the delay, nor has he demonstrated that the delay was rooted in bad faith actions by law enforcement officers. Therefore, we hold that Wolfs trial counsel was not ineffective for failing to file a motion to suppress on t 10th Cir.2009) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Syphers, 426 F.3d 461, 469
holding that the mere assertion of constitutional right to refuse consent to search does not supply probable cause to search holding a month delay in search of a computer constitutional because probable cause continued to exist at the time of the search and no prejudice occurred holding a fivemonth delay in searching a computer did not invalidate the search because there was no showing that the delay caused a lapse in probable cause that it created prejudice to the defendant or that officers acted in bad faith holding the search of a computer after the warrant had expired constitutional because despite the delay probable cause for the search continued to exist holding warrantless search of defendants automobile four days after impoundment was permissible under requirements of fourth amendment and state constitution where officers had probable cause to search vehicle when it was impounded and that probable cause continued between the time of the impoundment and the search