residence; and (5) field reports stating that the drugs obtained during the controlled purchases tested positive for heroin, not cocaine. Tellingly, however, none of these allegations directly challenge the affidavit’s allegations that the three controlled purchases in fact occurred. Thus, even if we assume arguendo that Green has made a substantial preliminary showing that several statements tangentially related to the controlled purchases were intentionally or recklessly falsified, his argument would still fail because even “a single controlled purchase is sufficient to establish probable cause to believe that drugs are present at the purchase location.” United States v. Archibald, 685 F.3d 553, 558 (6th Cir.2012); see also United States v. Jackson, 470 F.3d 299, 308 (6th Cir.2006) (<HOLDING>). Nor did Green actually make a substantial
holding that all data necessary to show probable cause for the issuance of a search warrant must be contained within the four corners of the affidavit holding that an officers account of a controlled buy made by an informant was by itself sufficient to es tablish probable cause for issuance of a search warrant 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 holding that a controlled buy at a particular home provided probable cause for the search of that residence holding warrant valid where search warrant application affidavit was signed and probable cause existed for issuance of warrant