846 P.2d 1256, 1260 (Utah 1998) (quoting Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 238, 103 S.Ct. 2317, 76 L.Ed.2d 527 (1983)). 113 The search warrant affidavit contained an inaccurate date. Agent White's affidavit in support of the search warrant stated that on "September 26, 2006, at approximately 12:26 HRS MST," he observed child pornography being offered from a specific IP address on a peer-to-peer file-sharing network. Agent White further stated that he later sent an administrative subpoena to the internet service provider holding that IP address, requesting identification of the subscriber using that specific IP address "on September 20th, 2006, at 12:26 hours MST." The internet service provider responded that the IP address was assigned to Mitchell for a nine-day perio P.3d 1147 (<HOLDING>); United States v. Snyder, 471 Fed.Appx. 884,
holding that a test of a urine sample implicates the fourth amendment recognizing problems with generalizing from an extremely limited sample when a broader sample  can be readily obtained and when no showing of the representativeness of the sample is made holding blood sample does not constitute compelled testimony holding that a warrant to obtain a blood sample was valid despite a reference to a urine sample in the addendum to the affidavit because the minor inconsistency did not seriously undermine the information underlying the probable cause determination holding defendant had a reasonable expectation of privacy in blood sample drawn by hospital