description provided were ample, particularly given the fact that the executing officers had previously monitored the mobile home to be searched, assuring that the warrant would not be executed upon the wrong home. Id. at 495. The Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision, relying on its holding in Durk, and emphasizing once again that where a description of the house to be searched is given, specific reference is made to the house’s occupant, and the warrant is executed by an officer already familiar with the location, due to prior surveillance, inaccuracies in the description of the street address will not render a warrant unconstitutional. Id. at 497. Durk and Pelayo-Landero control in this case. See also United States v. Lemmons, 527 F.2d 662, 665-66 (6th Cir.1975) (<HOLDING>), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 817, 97 S.Ct. 60, 50
holding that a city may not be held liable under  1983 where there was no underlying constitutional violation by any of its officers 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 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 there was no constitutional violation where a warrant was issued for a shop at 9300 woodward but where once inside the executing officers also searched 9304 woodward which was connected by an internal archway and used as an extra space by the shopkeeper holding anticipatory warrant was invalid for lack of probable cause because at time warrant was issued the contraband was not on a sure course to the place to be searched and there was no assurance defendant would take contraband to that place