With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". their totality, support application of the exclusionary rule under Herring. ... Herring requires careful consideration by district courts of whether the goal of deterring violations of the Fourth Amendment outweighs the costs to truth-seeking and law enforcement objectives in each case.”). Accordingly, we will vacate the District Court’s decision and remand to allow the District Court to make further findings and to perform the required exclusionary rule analysis. iji if: if: # if: We have considered all of the arguments advanced by the parties and conclude that no further discussion is necessary. The judgment of the District Court will be VACATED and REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. 1 . See, e.g., United States v. McGrew, 122 F.3d 847, 849 (9th Cir. 1997) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Dahlman, 13 F.3d 1391, 1395

A: holding that an incorporated affidavit did not provide particularity because the government offered no evidence that the affidavit or any copies were ever attached to the warrant or were present at the time of the search
B: holding that search warrant which was lacking sufficient description of premises and did not have affidavit attached was not fatally defective when read together with affidavit and when one of officers executing warrant was affiant
C: holding that a search warrant is invalid if not based on an affidavit
D: holding that an affidavit did not provide probable cause sufficient to validate a warrant where the affidavit stated an incorrect date uncontradicted by any other specific fact in the affidavit
A.