pornography statute are sufficient, see, e.g., United States v. Chrobak, 289 F.3d 1043, 1045 (8th Cir. 2002); United States v. Simpson, 152 F.3d 1241, 1246-47 (10th Cir. 1998), I agree with the First Circuit that determining whether a particular image falls within the statute involves “inherent subjectivity.” Brunette, 256 F.3d at 18; United States v. Syphers, 296 F. Supp. 2d 50, 54-55 (D.N.H. 2003); Getzel, 196 F. Supp. 2d at 91. Given this inherent subjectivity, I cannot agree with the holding in Smith that reference to the statutory language is sufficiently specific for a judge to make an independent determination of probable cause. The majority holds that the defendant’s admission alone adequately establishes probable cause. See United States v. Harris, 403 U.S. 573, 583 (1971) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Roberts, 274 F.3d 1007, 1016
holding that personal conjecture about the manner in which indian passport officials carry out their duties could not support an adverse credibility finding holding that history of dishonesty can support an adverse credibility finding holding that admissions of crime like admissions against proprietary interests carry their own indicia of credibility  sufficient at least to support a finding of probable cause holding that direct evidence linking a crime to the particular place to be searched is not required to support a finding of probable cause holding that material alterations in the applicants account of persecution are sufficient to support an adverse credibility finding