weakened if a court can rely on the recollection of those concerned to support a probable cause finding long after the search warrant has been issued." Id. at 802. ¶ 24. Still, Raflik admits that most federal courts have not seen fit to suppress evidence because of a failure to record some or all of the warrant application. See, e.g., United States v. Richardson, 943 F.2d 547 (5th Cir. 1991) (finding suppression inappropriate when the magistrate and prosecutor were unaware that the recording equipment did not work, and where no record was made); United States v. Rome, 809 F.2d 665 (10th Cir. 1987) (refusing to suppress evidence when the preliminary discussions between the magistrate and the agent were not recorded); United States v. Loyd, 721 F.2d 331 (11th Cir. 1983) (per curiam) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Stefanson, 648 F.2d 1231
holding that failure to review the evidence presented to the magistrate and failure even to have a transcript filed with the district court  was reversible error holding that the trial court failed to exercise its discretion by stating that it did not have the ability to present the transcript to the jury holding that suppression is not necessary when the magistrate failed to certify the accuracy of the recorded transcript holding that the lack of evidence that the magistrate judge examined the trial transcript in its sufficiencyoftheevidence analysis left the court no alternative but to reverse the denial of habeas relief and remand for review of the transcript holding that trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting a transcript of a recording even though defense counsel did not stipulate to its accuracy