In addition, the warrant was not so lacking in indicia of probable cause as to render official belief in its existence as unreasonable. Although few guidelines for application of the "so lacking in indicia" situation are available, the proper focus of such an inquiry is on the objective belief of the officer; it is irrelevant that "thoughtful and competent jurists" may readily have recognized the insufficiency of the evidence. Taxacher, 902 F.2d at 871; United States v. Wright, 811 F. Supp. 1576, 1583-84 (S.D. Ga. 1993). The "good-faith inquiry is confined to the objectively ascertainable question whether a reasonably well-trained officer would have known that the search was illegal despite the magistrate's authorization. In making this determination, all of the circumstances . . . may be considered.

In making this determination, all of the circumstances . . . may be considered." Leon, 468 U.S. at 922 n.23; Taxacher, 902 F.2d 871 ("Observing that the purpose of the exclusionary rule is to deter unlawful police conduct, the Court found that this purpose would not be served, and the rule should not be applied, when officers engage in 'objectively reasonable law enforcement activity."); United States v. Wright, 811 F. Supp. 1576, 1583-84 (S.D. Ga. 1993).

Even without field- or lab-testing to confirm that the substances purchased by the informant were in fact narcotics, the controlled purchases at the residence buttressed the judge's finding of probable cause. SeeUnited States v. Wright, 811 F. Supp. 1576, 1581 (S.D. Ga. 1993) (rejecting argument that failure to field-test suspected drugs undermined value of controlled buys and noting that that argument "fail[ed] to recognize that evidence upon which a search warrant is based need not be sufficient to convict at trial"). In view of the purpose and nature of the transactions detailed in the affidavit, the controlled buys cannot be mistaken for something as innocuous as a visit from a next-door neighbor to borrow a cup of sugar, as was suggested during oral argument.

Jones, 179 N.J. at 394-95 (citing United States v. Wright, 811 F.Supp. 1576, 1581 (S.D.Ga.1993)).