At least one circuit has held, albeit in an unpublished opinion, that the good-faith exception applied to a warrant that was substantially similar to the one at issue here. See United States v. Gove, 452 Fed.Appx. 555, 557 (5th Cir.2011) (unpublished). There, the search warrant was supported by an affidavit stating that the defendant's brother had observed non-pornographic child erotica on the defendant's computer, and that the affiant knew from her “training and experience that the majority of people who collect child pornography collect child erotica as well.”

” Rochelle, 205 Fed.Appx. at 297. The Fifth Circuit, in affirming the district court's denial of the defendant's suppression motion, rejected the defendant's argument and held that it “does not convince us that the lack of probable cause was so obvious as to render official belief in its existence entirely unreasonable.” Id.; see also United States v. Gove, 452 Fed.Appx. 555 (5th Cir. 2011). Child erotica, which includes nude pictures of minors, is a factor that courts may consider in finding a substantial basis for probable cause to suspect a child pornography offense has been committed. Rochelle, 205 Fed.Appx. at 297; United States v. Sustaita, No. H-17-0065, 2017 WL 4685160, at p. 5 (S.D. Tex. Oct. 17, 2017).

An affidavit supporting a search warrant for child pornography does not need to show "specific, individualized information that a defendant possesses child pornography." United States v. Flanders, 468 F.3d 269, 271 n. 3 (5th Cir. 2006) (citing United States v. Froman, 355 F.3d 882, 890-91 (5th Cir. 2004)); see also United States v. Gove, 452 F. App'x 555, 556 (5th Cir. 2011) (same). Furthermore, even if the images obtained do not contain depictions constituting child pornography as Defendant argues, but instead constitute child erotica, the presence of child erotica is still a factor that courts consider in finding a substantial basis for probable cause to suspect a child pornography offense has been committed.

" United States v. Flanders, 468 F.3d 269, 271 n. 3 (5th Cir. 2006)(citing United States v. Froman, 355 F.3d 882, 890-91 (5th Cir. 2004)). See also United States v. Gove, 452 F. App'x 555, 556 (5th Cir. 2011) (same). Moreover, in United States v. Rochelle, 205 F. App'x 296 (5th Cir. 2006)(per curiam), the Fifth Circuit rejected the argument that the defendant makes here.