buys than in Smith by equipping the informant with an audio transmitter. See id. Fountain therefore fails to show that Ruffin knowingly or recklessly mischaracterized these operations as controlled buys. Fountain also points out that the description of “the premises” in the affidavit’s preamble includes his apartment’s street address, whereas the street address is missing from the sworn facts section’s description of “the premises.” He argues that this variation blurs the point as to whether Detective Ruffin could actually see the informant buy drugs from Apartment 2. Because we read both descriptions as fairly referring to Apartment 2, we cannot say the variance in descriptions in any way misleads. See United States v. Ventresca, 380 U.S. 102, 108, 85 S.Ct. 741, 13 L.Ed.2d 684 (1965) (<HOLDING>). %: Omission of Material Fact Fountain’s claim
holding officers did not have a realistic opportunity to intervene because they were not present at the time of the shooting recognizing that because affidavits are typically drafted in the midst and haste of a criminal investigation by nonlawyers they must be read with an understanding of that context and accordingly held to a lower standard of scrutiny than that applied to pleadings filed in more formal proceedings holding that investigation was not conducted with sufficient haste when the defendant was detained for over fortyfive minutes holding outofcourt statements relating to reasons for investigation are not admissible where the reasons for the investigation are not at issue holding that affidavits for search warrants must be interpreted in a commonsense and realistic fashion because they are normally drafted by nonlawyers in the midst and haste of a criminal investigation