"In the absence of an allegation that the magistrate abandoned his detached and neutral role, suppression is appropriate only if the officers were dishonest or reckless in preparing their affidavit or could not have harbored an objectively reasonable belief in the existence of probable cause". Carried to its logical conclusion this holding in Leon means a reviewing court "need not determine whether the warrant affidavit presented a basis for probable cause" and may consider evidence of good faith not contained in the four-corners of the affidavit. Does "hearing of pertinent testimony before applying the good faith exception strike the right balance between deference to and oversight of the issuing magistrate's judgment"? This is certainly a far cry from the interpretation given to 38.23(b). Robinson