at 94 (stating that probable cause as to specific apartment in mul-ti-family dwelling authorizes search of that apartment). Further, because the warrant was supported by probable cause, we necessarily reject Morris’s challenge to the district court’s alternative finding that the executing officers relied on the warrant in good faith. See United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897, 104 S.Ct. 3405, 82 L.Ed.2d 677 (1984). We note only that, even if probable cause were lacking — which it is not — Judge Hannah’s failure to record the Cl’s testimony in accordance with state law, and his decision to credit the Cl’s testimony despite his active drug use, would not manifest an abandonment of Judge Hannah’s judicial role so as to preclude reliance on Leon. See United States v. Clark, 638 F.3d at 101 (<HOLDING>); United States v. Smith, 9 F.3d 1007, 1013-14
holding that legal error in probable cause determination does not by itself indicate abandonment of judicial role holding that the first amendment does not by itself give rise to a cause of action for damages holding that a determination of probable cause does not bar a state law malicious prosecution claim where the claim is based on the police officers supplying false information to establish probable cause holding that probable cause determination presents a mixed question of law and fact holding that the commissions no probable cause determination was decisive