faith” belief that drugs would be at the residence at a future time. The affidavit states, in effect, that an undisclosed informant said drugs would be at a certain residence at an unspecified future date and time. Based on the affidavit, the informant did not report having been inside the residence, having seen anyone purchase or sell drugs inside the residence, or having seen anyone using drugs inside the residence. Neither the affiant nor the informant reported having witnessed a drug transaction in the residence or a drug transaction involving anyone who was there or resided there. The affidavit contains no statement which asserts that anyone saw drugs in the residence or on a person at the residence. See Janis v. Commonwealth, 22 Va.App. 646, 653-54, 472 S.E.2d 649, 653 (1996) (<HOLDING>), aff'd en banc, 23 Va.App. 696, 479 S.E.2d 534
holding that a magistrate had a substantial basis to support a finding of probable cause because the affidavit recounted the alleged criminal activity in detail holding that an affidavit did not provide probable cause sufficient to validate a warrant where the affidavit stated an incorrect date uncontradicted by any other specific fact in the affidavit holding that the district court erred in denying a  2254 petition because it had improperly resolved a disputed factual issue based solely on an affidavit filed by the petitioners attorney and there was no record evidence that corroborated the attorneys affidavit holding that the affidavit gave absolutely no indication that the fruits of criminal activity would probably be found at that location rendering the officers belief in probable cause based solely on the affidavit objectively unreasonable  holding that there was probable cause for the issuance of a search warrant where the officers corroboration of events that occurred during the controlled buy as set forth in the affidavit provide sufficient probable cause