With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1051, 115 S.Ct. 654, 130 L.Ed.2d 558 (1994); see United States v. Bianco, 998 F.2d 1112, 1116-17 (2d Cir.1993), cert. denied, 511 U.S. 1069, 114 S.Ct. 1644, 128 L.Ed.2d 364 (1994); see also United States v. Tagbering, 985 F.2d 946, 950 (8th Cir.1993) (construing warrant and supporting affidavit “fairly” and in “ ‘commonsense’ ” manner) (citation omitted). Courts also recognize that the “conditions governing an anticipatory warrant [should be] ‘explicit, clear, and narrowly drawn’ ” to preserve the magistrate judge’s role in determining probable cause. Ricciardelli, 998 F.2d at 12 (quoting Garcia, 882 F.2d at 703-04); see Gendron, 18 F.3d at 965. The conditions in this case were stated in the affidavit supporting the warrant. See Hugoboom, 112 F.3d at 1087 (<HOLDING>). I therefore look at the context in which the

A: holding that if sufficient untainted evidence was presented in the warrant affidavit to establish probable cause the warrant was nevertheless valid
B: holding valid conditions for execution of the warrant which are constitutionally satisfactory stated in the affidavit that solicits the warrant and accepted by the issuing magistrate
C: holding warrant valid where search warrant application affidavit was signed and probable cause existed for issuance of warrant
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
B.