Appellants were convicted of conspiracy to import narcotics. The sole issue on appeal is the sufficiency of an affidavit given in support of a search warrant. The validity of the warranted search is thus brought in question.

On August 4, 1971, an agent of the Nevada Department of Fish and Game discovered an airplane burning in a dry lake bed in Lander County Nevada. He ra dioed his warden, who notified the sheriff of Lander County in Battle Mountain, who, in turn, called his deputy in Austin. The deputy and the warden then joined the Fish and Game agent at the scene and investigated the aircraft. The deputy returned to Austin and notified the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Federal Aviation Administration. The following day an agent of . the FBI and an agent of the FAA, accompanied by two deputy sheriffs, visited the scene and investigated the aircraft. They followed tracks leading from the scene and about two-and-one-half miles away came upon a deserted camper truck mired in mud. The back door was open and they could see a number of white sacks with Spanish words printed on them. From the interior came a strong smell of marijuana. Exercising admirable restraint, they decided to secure a search warrant. A deputy was left with the truck. The other returned to Austin where he telephoned to the sheriff and district attorney at Battle Mountain, reporting on the results of the investigations of aircraft and truck. An affidavit was then prepared by the district attorney and signed by the sheriff. In reliance on the affidavit a search warrant was issued by the justice of the peace in Battle Mountain. The sheriff returned to the mired truck at about midnight and the following day the truck was searched and marijuana was recovered.

The District Court, 347 F.Supp. 157 , denied a motion to suppress and following trial and judgment of conviction this appeal was taken.

The affidavit given by the sheriff to the justice of the peace read as follows:

Relying upon Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U.S. 108 , 84 S.Ct. 1509 , 12 L.Ed.2d 723 (1964), appellants attack the sufficiency of the affidavit upon the ground that it is entirely given upon information and belief and fails to disclose the identity of the informant and the basis for a belief that he was reliable.

In denying motion to suppress the District Court stated:

We agree. In United States v. Ventresca, 380 U.S. 102, 111 , 85 S.Ct. 741, 747 , 13 L.Ed.2d 684 (1965), the Court stated:

In Spinelli v. United States, 393 U.S. 410 , 89 S.Ct. 584 , 21 L.Ed.2d 637 (1969), the Court found detail lacking in the affidavit; but at the same time the Court pointed to Draper v. United States, 358 U.S. 307 , 79 S.Ct. 329 , 3 L.Ed.2d 327 (1959), as a case where “A magistrate, when confronted with such detail, could reasonably infer that the informant had gained his information in a reliable way.” Spinelli v. United States, 393 U.S. 410, 417 , 89 S.Ct. 584, 589 (1969).

Here the nature and detail of the disclosures of the “investigation” — as to the incendiary origin of the aircraft fire, as to the nature of the disablement of the aircraft, as to its fuel and carrying capacity, and the quantity of fuel in its tank — all strongly indicate that the investigation was official.

Judgment affirmed.

. Other issues were argued which we do not find it necessary to reach.