U.S. v. Patton

In prosecution on drug distribution charge, Dist. Ct. did not err in denying defendant’s motion to suppress seizure of drugs, even though: (1) record contained only affidavit containing statements from informant that he had seen defendant remove retail quantity of drugs from his safe; and (2) affidavit failed to contain other facts that would establish reliability of informant. Record showed that state court took testimony from informant prior to issuing warrant, and although testimony of informant was not recorded, officer executing warrant could properly believe that state court judge had done everything required by law to find probable cause, so as to preclude imposition of exclusionary rule under Leon, 468 U.S. 897. Result is same, even if record was unclear as to whether there was probable cause to support issuance of warrant.