A police officer had probable cause to search appellant’s house after an informant pointed it out to him. The officer obtained a warrant, and personally executed it on the house that he had been shown. The warrant’s description and address of the house to be search differed somewhat from the description and address of the actual house, in that it was described as a two-story house, instead of a one-story, and the address differed by one digit. The Supreme Court here held that there was no need to suppress the evidence because of those differences. Complete precision in describing the place to be searched is not required if the officer can with reasonable effort ascertain and identify the intended object of the search. Here, the officer could easily locate and identify the premises, and there was little probability that another house would be mistakenly searched. Nothing in the record suggested that any other house existed which fit the warrant’s description so closely. Moreover, the officer who sought the warrant and provided the description actually served the warrant, even further lowering the chances of mistake. There was no reason to obtain an amended warrant because the warrant authorized a search of the house that was subsequently searched. Because the warrant described the house to be searched with sufficient particularity, it was unnecessary to determine whether the good-faith exception applied.