however, no transcript of his sworn statement was prepared.” Id. at 479, 480. We affirmed the district court’s ruling that the search warrant was invalid, stating that “the officers could not have had a good faith belief that the warrant was valid because the warrant was obtained with a ‘bare bones’ affidavit, and no transcript of [the detective’s] sworn statement was recorded by the Court.” Id. at 480-81. In Pruitt, the government therefore relied on the arrest warrant only because procedural errors had invalidated the search warrant that the officers had obtained, but the government’s evidence regarding the quantum of proof showing the likelihood that the defendant was inside the residence was the exact same evidence the officers had used in obtaining a search warrant. See id. at 483 (<HOLDING>). At no point did the majority in Pruitt
holding that there was sufficient probable cause to search a defendants residence after evidence of drug dealing was found in his car during a traffic stop that was conducted when the defendant was coming from his residence and noting that under such circumstances a practical commonsense conclusion could be made that the drugs and money had been at the defendants residence a short time before the stop holding that the warrant application at issue did not specifically mention the presence of criminal activity at defendants residence but that the executing officers reasonably relied on the warrant holding that the warrant application at issue did not specifically mention the presence of criminal activity at defendants residence but that the executing officers reasonably relied on warrant holding that evidence was insufficient to prove constructive possession where the defendant was in jail at the time the drugs were seized from his residence holding that the officers had sufficient evidence to believe that the defendant was inside the residence to execute the arrest warrant because the officers relied on the anonymous tip given to the defendants parole officer the drivers identification of the defendant as meaty in a photograph and his assertion that meaty was in the residence at that time selling drugs