including September 20. {14 Mitchell, assuming that the September 26 date was accurate, argues that the affidavit does not establish probable cause, because IP addresses frequently change. Therefore, Mitchell argues, no information was provided to show that he was the sub-seriber of the IP address on September 26, when the child pornography was being shared. The State responds that the September 26 date was a typographical error that did not undermine the probable cause determination. 15 Errors in an affidavit do not require suppression when the magistrate has a substantial basis to determine that the erroneous facts are merely typographical errors and the facts otherwise support a determination of probable cause. See, e.g., State v. Valle-Flores, 2005 UT App 290, ¶¶ 2-5, 117 P.3d 1069 (<HOLDING>); State v. Wallace, 2002 UT App 295, ¶¶ 24-26,
holding that antiwar demonstrators announcing to no particular individual or group well take the f  ting street again after police had cleared street in question was neither fighting words nor incitement under applicable precedent holding that a warrant to search 626 pueblo street was supported by probable cause despite the supporting affidavits reference to both 624 pueblo street and 626 pueblo street 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 that there was no reasonable expectation of privacy in the contents of plastic garbage bags left on or at the side of a public street holding warrant valid where search warrant application affidavit was signed and probable cause existed for issuance of warrant