looked right at her, that’s how I got a good look at her.” Shirk stated that the female wore a full face helmet, but he did not say that it covered her face. Further, the officers disclosed that the female wore a “full face helmet” in the affidavit. Thus, this information does not undermine Shirk’s identification or the judge’s issuance of the warrant. The Ewings next note that after viewing various DMV photos, including those of Mark and Heather, Contreras and Rajala initially made no identifications. However, the officers included Rajala’s statement in the affidavit. They did not include Contreras’s non-identification, but given the strength of Shirk’s identification, this omission does not cast doubt on probable cause. See United States v. Colkley, 899 F.2d 297, 302 (4th Cir.1990) (<HOLDING>). The Ewings also complain that pri- or to
holding that omission of nonidentification from photo spread was not material and that the fourth amendment does not require an affiant to include all potentially exculpatory evidence in the affidavit holding allegation that false affidavit was basis for arrest warrant is sufficient to state  1983 fourth amendment claim against affiant officer holding that the state has no affirmative duty to seek out and gain possession of potentially exculpatory evidence holding defendant was improperly denied potentially exculpatory evidence holding that the observation of evidence in plain view is not a search for purposes of the fourth amendment and does not require a warrant