See, Adair and Via v. State, 482 S.W.2d 247 (Tex.Cr.App.1972). Yantis v. State, 476 S.W.2d 24 (Tex.Cr.App.1972); Wetherby v. State, 482 S.W.2d 852 (Tex.Cr.App.1972). It is observed, however, that Officer Presley knew there was a car as described by the informer.

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)."

In determining the sufficiency of such affidavit to reflect probable cause for the issuance of the search warrant, this Court is bound by the four corners thereof. Wetherby v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 482 S.W.2d 852; Adair v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 482 S.W.2d 247. In Aguilar v. Texas, supra, the United States Supreme Court stated:

In determining the sufficiency of such affidavit to reflect probable cause for the issuance of the search warrant, this Court is bound by the four corners thereof. Wetherby v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 482 S.W.2d 852; Adair v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 482 S.W.2d 247; Cook v. State, 497 S.W.2d 295 (1973). The affidavit states that the informant had been inside the apartment within the past 12 hours and had seen Lola Faye Johnson selling capsules of heroin to others.

In determining the sufficiency of the affidavit, we are bound by the four corners of the document. Gaston v. State, 440 S.W.2d 297 (Tex.Cr.App. — 1969) (Onion, J., concurring), cert. denied, 396 U.S. 969, 90 S.Ct. 452, 24 L.Ed.2d 435; Wetherby v. State, 482 S.W.2d 852 (Tex.Cr.App. — 1972). Examining the affidavit in such manner, we hold that it does reflect adequate probable cause and sufficient 'underlying circumstances' to satisfy the requirements of Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U.S. 108, 84 S.Ct. 1509, 12 L.Ed.2d 723. Appellant's first ground of error is overruled.

See, e.g., Polanco v. State, 475 S.W.2d 763 (Tex.Cr.App. 1971). Among the cases in which this Court has considered the second requirement of Aguilar as applied to an unnamed first-time informer are Yantis v. State, 476 S.W.2d 24 (Tex.Cr.App. 1972); Adair v. State, 482 S.W.2d 247 (Tex.Cr.App. 1972); Wetherby v. State, 482 S.W.2d 852 (Tex.Cr.App. 1972); and Cook v. State, 497 S.W.2d 295 (Tex.Cr.App. 1973). In each of these cases the affidavit was found to be sufficient to meet the second requirement of Aguilar but each opinion indicates that the affidavit considered met only the minimal requirement.

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.

In Phenix v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 488 S.W.2d 759, on p. 765, we said: 'In Wetherby v. State, (Tex.Cr.App.) 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).

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.

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.