In prosecution on drugs and weapons charges, Dist. Ct. did not err in denying defendant’s motion to suppress evidence seized in search of defendant’s home, even though defendant argued that search warrant lacked probable cause to support instant search. Instant application for warrant noted that defendant had participated in recorded controlled purchase of drugs, and that informant had provided reliable information for over 10-year period. Fact that officer failed to tell court that informant had long criminal history, and that officer had failed to search informant prior to controlled purchase did not translate into finding that warrant lacked probable cause, where audio and video evidence of controlled purchase rendered informant’s reliability and motivation immaterial as to determination of existence of probable cause. Moreover, fact that there was period of time between controlled purchase and application for warrant did not imply that defendant no longer sold drugs from his home, since there was no evidence that officer knew that defendant’s home no longer contained cocaine, and instant delay was motivated by police desire to prevent defendant from inferring identify of informant.