ground that the search of his computer was untimely because the motion, if pursued on this basis, would not have been granted by the district court. IV. CONCLUSION We hold that the district court did not err in denying Wolfs application for post-conviction relief because Wolfs counsel was not ineffective for failing to file a motion to suppress. Accordingly, the district court’s order summarily dismissing Wolfs application for post-conviction relief is affirmed. No costs or attorney fees are awarded on appeal. Chief Judge GRATTON and Judge LANSING concur. 1 . Several other jurisdictions have dealt with this issue and also held forensic examination of computers conducted after a search warrant expired to be constitutional. See United States v. Brewer, 588 F.3d 1165, 1173 (8th Cir.2009) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Burgess, 576 F.3d 1078, 1097
holding that the mere assertion of constitutional right to refuse consent to search does not supply probable cause to search 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 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 that a visual body cavity search requires probable cause and a search warrant holding the search of a computer after the warrant had expired constitutional because despite the delay probable cause for the search continued to exist