on these facts. There is no question that the officers here noticed the number of kitchens and living rooms before the application for the search warrant was made. There was no such “haste” involved when they failed to recognize the contradiction between the explicit claim in the probable cause affidavit that the building was a “single-family residence” with one kitchen and one living room and the fact that it had four kitchens and several “living rooms.” In light of all the information readily available, it was unreasonable for the police to conclude that 624 West Eugene Street was a single-family residence. At the very least, police officers should have investigated further, as they had in Garrison and Williams. Accord, United States v. Andrews, 713 F.Supp. 1319, 1321 (D.Minn.1989) (<HOLDING>). The exception established in Garrison and
holding that the evidence supported two separate convictions and punishments for two attempted robberies of two different victims who suffered separate and distinct harms holding that congress envisioned two separate petitions filed to review two separate final orders holding under garrison that officers should have known that building contained two separate apartments because officers prior to search noticed two separate voice boxes by front door and a letter indicating two apartments this information should have prompted further investigation holding unanimity requirement not violated when charge stated two separate counts with two separate and distinct offenses in each case holding that under the former rules congress envisioned two separate petitions filed to review two separate final orders