Is a search warrant sufficient to suppress pornographic material seized from a home pursuant to a warrantless search?

Graff contends that the district court erred by failing to suppress the pornographic materials seized from his residence because inspectors seized the materials pursuant to a warrantless search. The legality of a warrantless search is a mixed issue of law and fact which we review de novo. United States v. Feldman, 788 F.2d 544, 550 (9th Cir.1986).

We will uphold a district court's findings of fact unless they are clearly erroneous. Id. This court gives great weight to the determination of the credibility of witnesses made by the district court, which can choose to believe the testimony of a police officer. United States v. Allen, 699 F.2d 453, 459 (9th Cir.1982) (at hearing on motion to suppress incriminating statement, district court chose to believe agent's testimony that statement was voluntary); e.g., United States v. Rodriguez, 869 F.2d 479, 486 (9th Cir.1989) ("this court is not in a position to make a clearer credibility determination than that made by the district court" where defendants unsuccessfully contended that officers securing premises, prior to arrival of warrant, searched for more than occupants).