With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". case, the defendant’s preliminary burden to obtain a hearing pursuant to Franks is the same as in a case involving affirmative misrepre sentations. See, e.g., Calisto, 838 F.2d at 714-15. In determining whether the omission was critical to the finding of probable cause, however, a court must decide if probable cause would have existed had the omitted information been disclosed. United States v. Frost, 999 F.2d 737, 743 (3d Cir.1993); Calisto, 838 F.2d at 715. Probable cause for a search warrant exists when the totality of the affidavit demonstrates “a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place.” Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 238, 103 S.Ct. 2317, 76 L.Ed.2d 527 (1983); see also United States v. Jones, 994 F.2d 1051, 1056 (3d Cir.1993) (<HOLDING>). In the case of a drug dealer, there is often

A: holding anticipatory warrant was invalid for lack of probable cause because at time warrant was issued the contraband was not on a sure course to the place to be searched and there was no assurance defendant would take contraband to that place
B: holding that direct evidence linking a crime to the particular place to be searched is not required to support a finding of probable cause
C: holding that probable cause inquiry is whether considering totality of the circumstances there is a fair probability that contraband  will be found in a particular place
D: holding that government may search for mere evidence of a crime and that in the case of mere evidence probable cause must be examined in terms of cause to believe that the evidence sought will aid in a particular apprehension or conviction
B.