believe violation of statute had occurred). Sosa has produced relevant evidence of one misstatement and one omission. First, Sosa argues that Hames misstated the location of Accion’s business records because he knew the documents were kept at the business location and not at Sosa’s residence. According to the Affidavit, Sosa told Officer Reyes the business records were being kept at Sosa’s residence. (See Oct. 4, 2004 Aff. for Search Warrant at 2). Although Sosa maintains he did not make any such statements to Officer Reyes, Hames was entitled rely upon statements made to him by another officer in drafting the Affidavit, even if it is ultimately discovered that Officer Reyes misstated the evidence. See Rugendorf v. United States, 376 U.S. 528, 533, 84 S.Ct. 825, 11 L.Ed.2d 887 (1964) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Ventresca, 380 U.S. 102,
holding that a statement that the affiant is senior vicepresident and secretary of a corporation asserting a special appearance is sufficient to affirmatively show how the affiant has personal knowledge of the affidavit statements regarding the corporations contacts with texas holding that a statement that the affiant is president of the company asserting a claim on an account is sufficient to affirmatively show how the affiant has personal knowledge of the affidavit statements regarding the account holding allegation that false affidavit was basis for arrest warrant is sufficient to state  1983 fourth amendment claim against affiant officer holding warrant not undermined and affiant did not act in bad faith where affiant relied upon erroneous statements made by third party holding that a trial court had implicitly found that an affiant lacked credibility even where the affidavit testimony was uncontroverted