The former holding, however, seems to have originated in Pecina v. State, supra, wherein the Court ruled, in the face of a claim that the warrant affidavit contained no showing the informant could readily recognize contraband: "The affidavit presented here is substantially the same as that approved by this court in Wetherby v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 482 S.W.2d 852. See also Cummins v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 478 S.W.2d 452.

In his ninth ground of error appellant alleges that the trial court erred in sustaining the State's objection to defense counsel's request for the names of the persons described in the affidavit supporting the search warrant as "users and sellers of narcotics' who were seen frequenting appellant's apartment. In Wetherby v. State, 482 S.W.2d 852 (1972), this court said, ". . . it is well settled "that a court will not look behind the allegations of an affidavit for the issuance of a search warrant." Brown v. State, 437 S.W.2d 828 (Tex.Cr.App. 1968)."

Caution should be exercised in comparing the details provided in one affidavit with those of another, lest judicial consideration of whether important, constitutionally protected interests have been violated becomes an arid and mechanistic exercise. Nevertheless, we have reviewed the cases in this area of the law, focusing upon Caldarera v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 504 S.W.2d 914; Cook v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 497 S.W.2d 295; Wetherby v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 482 S.W.2d 852; Adair v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 482 S.W.2d 247; and Yantis v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 476 S.W.2d 24. It is apparent that the affidavit in the instant case states fewer underlying circumstances than those stated in the affidavits found sufficient in Cook, Wetherby, and Yantis. On the other hand, it provides more information than the supporting affidavit held invalid in Caldarera.

"The averments that the informant (1) lacked a criminal record; (2) had a reputation in the neighborhood (ostensibly a good one); and (3) was well thought of by fellow associates was minimally adequate and comported with the requirements of Aguilar." In Wetherby v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 482 S.W.2d 852, the averments found sufficient therein were that the informant was: "(1) Gainfully employed and (2) was well thought of by the people in the community in which he lived; and (3) that the informant had no criminal record with this department (Austin) or with the Department of Public Safety."

This Court had long held that a challenge to the affidavit's statement of probable cause could not go behind the face of the affidavit. Oubre v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 542 S.W.2d 875; Lopez v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 535 S.W.2d 643; Phenix v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 488 S.W.2d 759; Wetherby v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 482 S.W.2d 852. Most recently, in Jones v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 568 S.W.2d 847, this Court again followed this rule and stated that "Our determination of the sufficiency of an arrest or search warrant affidavit's statement of probable cause is limited to the four corners of the affidavit." 568 S.W.2d at 855.

The officer-affiant did not elaborate upon such conclusory statement or offer the magistrate in the affidavit other factors bearing on a first-time informer's reliability and credibility often found in affidavits involving first-time informers such as the presence or absence of a criminal record, reputation in the community, reputation with associates, position in community. See, i.e., Adair v. State, supra; Yantis v. State, 476 S.W.2d 24 (Tex.Cr.App. 1972); Wetherby v. State, 482 S.W.2d 852 (Tex.Cr.App. 1972); Cook v. State, 497 S.W.2d 295 (Tex.Cr.App. 1973). Therefore, we must look elsewhere in the affidavit to determine if the conclusory statement is supported.

In determining the sufficiency of the affidavit we are bound by the four corners thereof. Art. I, Sec. 9, Texas Constitution; Art. 18.01, V.A.C.C.P.; Ruiz v. State, 457 S.W.2d 894 (Tex.Cr.App. 1970); Gaston v. State, 440 S.W.2d 297 (Tex.Cr.App. 1969) (concurring opinion), cert. denied sub nom. Gaston v. Texas, 396 U.S. 969, 90 S.Ct. 452, 24 L.Ed.2d 435 (1969); Sessions v. State, 498 S.W.2d 933 (Tex.Cr.App. 1973); Cook v. State, 497 S.W.2d 295 (Tex.Cr.App. 1973); Hegdal v. State, 488 S.W.2d 782 (Tex.Cr.App. 1972); Wetherby v. State, 482 S.W.2d 852 (Tex.Cr.App. 1972); Adair v. State, 482 S.W.2d 247 (Tex.Cr.App. 1972); Polanco v. State, 475 S.W.2d 763 (Tex.Cr.App. 1972); Nicol v. State, 470 S.W.2d 893 (Tex.Cr.App. 1971); Hall v. State, 394 S.W.2d 659 (Tex.Cr.App. 1965). The charging instrument, the complaint, containing no allegations that the officer-affiant spoke with personal knowledge of the matters contained therein and not indicating any sources for the officer-affiant's belief and not setting forth any other sufficient basis upon which a finding of probable cause could be made did not provide that necessary basis upon which a finding of probable cause could be made. Giordenello v. United States, 357 U.S. 480, 78 S.Ct. 1245, 2 L.Ed.2d 1503 (1958); Whiteley v. Warden, Wyoming State Penitentiary, 401 U.S. 560, 91 S.Ct. 1031, 28 L.Ed.2d 306 (1970).

The affidavit stated that the informer had been in the appellant's apartment within six hours and had observed her remove a brown paper bag, from a drawer of a chest in the bedroom, which contained approximately one hundred foil wrapped packets of heroin. The affidavit presented here is substantially the same as that approved by this Court in Wetherby v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 482 S.W.2d 852. See also Cummins v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 478 S.W.2d 452.

It is well settled that the court will not look behind the allegations of an affidavit for the issuance of a search warrant. Phenix v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 488 S.W.2d 759; Wetherby v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 482 S.W.2d 852; Brown v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 437 S.W.2d 828. Apparently appellant contends that on an occasion subsequent to the arrest of appellant the same informer gave information which proved to be inaccurate. This obviously could have had no bearing upon the magistrate's determination of probable cause when he issued the search warrant which was the basis of the search in this cause.

791 (Tex.Cr.App. 1983); Winkles v. State, 634 S.W.2d 289 (Tex.Cr.App. 1981); Richardson v. State, 622 S.W.2d 852 (Tex.Cr.App. 1981); Juarez v. State, 586 S.W.2d 513 (Tex.Cr.App. 1979); Ramsey v. State, 579 S.W.2d 920 (Tex.Cr.App. 1979); Doescher v. State, 578 S.W.2d 385 (Tex.Cr.App. 1978); Jones v. State, 568 S.W.2d 847 (Tex.Cr.App. 1978); Lopez v. State, 535 S.W.2d 643 (Tex.Cr.App. 1976); Evans v. State, 530 S.W.2d 932 (Tex.Cr.App. 1975); Riojas v. State, 530 S.W.2d 298 (Tex.Cr.App. 1975); Carvajal v. State, 529 S.W.2d 517 (Tex.Cr.App. 1975); Abercrombie v. State, 528 S.W.2d 578 (Tex.Cr.App. 1974); Powell v. State, 505 S.W.2d 585 (Tex.Cr.App. 1974); Collins v. State, 502 S.W.2d 743 (Tex.Cr.App. 1973); McCrea v. State, 499 S.W.2d 151 (Tex.Cr.App. 1973); Sessions v. State, 498 S.W.2d 933 (Tex.Cr.App. 1973); Cook et al. v. State, 497 S.W.2d 295 (Tex.Cr.App. 1973); Hegdal v. State, 488 S.W.2d 782 (Tex.Cr.App. 1973); Polanco v. State, 475 S.W.2d 763 (Tex.Cr.App. 1971); Wetherby v. State, 482 S.W.2d 852 (Tex.Cr.App. 1972); Stoddard v. State, 475 S.W.2d 744 (Tex.Cr.App. 1972); Adair v. State, 482 S.W.2d 247 (Tex.Cr.App. 1972); Nicol v. State, 470 S.W.2d 893 (Tex.Cr.App. 1971); Gaston v. State, 440 S.W.2d 297 (Tex.Cr.App. 1969), cert. den. 396 U.S. 969, 90 S.Ct. 452, 24 L.Ed.2d 435 (1969); Ruiz v. State, 457 S.W.2d 894 (Tex.Cr.App. 1970) (Concurring opinion by Presiding Judge Onion); Gaston v. State, 440 S.W.2d 297 (Tex.Cr.App. 1969); Hall v. State, 394 S.W.2d 659 (Tex.Cr.App. 1965); Mc Lennan v. State, 109 Tex.Crim. 83, 3 S.W.2d 447 (1928). This Court's interpretation appears to be in accord with the majority viewpoint, that an otherwise insufficient warrant application may not be supplemented by unrecorded oral testimony.