Dist. Ct. did not err in granting defendant-police officer’s motion for summary judgment in plaintiff’s section 1983 action alleging that defendant made unlawful entry into plaintiff’s home, where search warrant did not clearly describe plaintiff’s apartment, since warrant listed “Apartment 1,” while plaintiff’s apartment was “1A.” While police normally must clear up any ambiguity prior to conducting search, instant search was not unlawful, where: (1) defendant was not aware at time of search that there was another apartment in building; and (2) defendant produced reliable contemporary documents indicating that plaintiff’s apartment was correct target of search authorized by ambiguous warrant and had confirmed with tipster that plaintiff’s apartment was where she had purchased drugs. Moreover, defendant had arguable probable cause to arrest plaintiff, even though defendant did not exactly match description of individual that was subject of search, since: (1) defendant testified that he could not be sure that plaintiff was not subject of search warrant, and plaintiff otherwise failed to produce identification to confirm his claimed identity; and (2) defendant arrested and released plaintiff within 15 minutes after defendant confirmed that plaintiff was wrong person.