are properly before this court. See United States v. Murillo, 288 F.3d 1126, 1135 (9th Cir.2002) (explaining that arguments not first raised before the district court in a motion to suppress are waived). As to Rigby’s arguments rightly before us, the affidavit created probable cause to search the items listed in the warrant. See Maryland v. Garrison, 480 U.S. 79, 84, 107 S.Ct. 1013, 94 L.Ed.2d 72 (1987) (explaining that Fourth Amendment requires that a warrant be limited “to the specific areas and things for which there is probable cause to search”). In the alternative, even if the issuing judge clearly erred in determining that probable cause supported the warrant, the good faith exception applies. See United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897, 922, 104 S.Ct. 3405, 82 L.Ed.2d 677 (1984) (<HOLDING>). Finally, the district court did not err in
holding exclusionary rule inapplicable to evidence obtained by police officers acting in reasonable reliance on search warrant later held invalid holding suppression of evidence obtained in objectively reasonable reliance on a subsequently invalidated search warrant is not required holding in the context of a non  212c iirira retroactivity challenge that if reliance were required we would insist at most upon objectively reasonable reliance and not subjective reliance holding that because evidence supporting search warrant was illegally obtained evidence recovered by executing warrant was fruit of the illegal search 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