With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". post office box rather than his home, as both the magistrate judge and district court noted, it was reasonable to suspect evidence of such activities would be found at Defendant’s home because “Defendant cannot manufacture methamphetamine in the post office.” We acknowledge that some of the information would be stale if viewed in a vacuum. However, given the relevancy of the latest Wells’ transaction, the older information was relevant to provide context; specifically that it was likely that the recently ordered materials were for use at Defendant’s residence. Defendant also challenges the veracity of the anonymous reports about odors and traffic at his house, claiming they have no weight in the probable cause assessment because they were uncorroborated. See Carpenter, 360 F.3d at 595 (<HOLDING>); United States v. Campbell, 256 F.3d 381, 388

A: holding that a totality of circumstances standard was proper for determining probable cause for issuance of a search warrant based on information from an informant
B: holding that a warrant affidavit failed to establish probable cause where it was based almost exclusively on the uncorroborated testimony of an unproven informant
C: holding that the uncorroborated testimony of an informant may be sufficient to sustain a conviction
D: holding warrant valid where search warrant application affidavit was signed and probable cause existed for issuance of warrant
B.