The defense was entitled to in camera review of the probation files of three witnesses against him; the court’s failure to conduct that review required remand. The defendant here had filed a Brady v. Maryland request for presentence probation reports for three cooperating witnesses, and when the prosecution asserted that the reports had not yet been prepared, followed up with a request for notes or other information contained in the probation department’s files. Noting that a defendant has no constitutional right to review a witness’s probation report, the court nonetheless found that the defendant has a right to any Brady material contained in those reports. However, the court rejected the defendant’s challenge to the denial of his motion to suppress evidence seized pursuant to a search warrant, finding that although the surveillance supporting the issuance of the warrant had occurred over a year before the warrant issued, the warrant was not based on stale information where the evidence showed the existence of a widespread and ongoing drug conspiracy.