With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". three, and five. State v. Ferrier, 136 Wn.2d 103, 111, 960 P.2d 927 (1998); State v. Boland, 115 Wn.2d 571, 576, 800 P.2d 1112 (1990). As for the fourth factor, we examine preexisting state law to determine what level of protection this state has historically accorded this subject. Ferrier, 136 Wn.2d at 111. And in doing so, we reject Aase’s argument — Washington cases have been consistent in finding that absent a showing of prejudice to the defendant, procedural noncompliance does not compel invalidation of an otherwise sufficient warrant or suppression of its fruits. State v. Kern, 81 Wn. App. 308, 311, 914 P.2d 114, review denied, 130 Wn.2d 1003 (1996). See State v. Parker, 28 Wn. App. 425, 426-27, 626 P.2d 508 (1981) (citing United States v. McKenzie, 446 F.2d 949 (6th Cir. 1971)) (<HOLDING>); State v. Bowman, 8 Wn. App. 148, 150, 504

A: holding suppression of evidence obtained in objectively reasonable reliance on a subsequently invalidated search warrant is not required
B: holding that search of backpack constituted a search of defendants person and was not authorized by search warrant for premises
C: holding that search not invalidated by defendant receiving unsigned and undated copy of warrant
D: holding that evidence obtained in objectively reasonable reliance on a subsequently invalidated search warrant is not barred by the exclusionary rule
C.