With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". prior convictions not fatal to warrant if affidavit read with that information deleted "nonetheless demonstrates that 'the issuing magistrate had a substantial basis for concluding that there were enough facts within the affidavit to find that probable cause existed' " (citation omitted)). T8 The issue before this court is whether, reading the affidavit with the information about Vest's arrest and Defendant's prior criminal history deleted, there were enough facts to find that probable cause existed. See State v. Dable, 2003 UT App 389,¶ 8, 81 P.3d 783 (concluding that arrest of the defendant in Wyoming for possession of methamphetamine, without more, failed to establish probable cause that drugs were located in her home in Utah); State v. Brooks, 849 P.2d 640, 644 (Utah Ct.App.1993) (<HOLDING>). T9 Application of the Jackson holding to the

A: holding that the arrest of the defendant two years prior to the warrant did nothing to establish that he was now dealing in controlled substances from his home
B: holding that an arrest warrant  without a search warrant  does not permit law enforcement authorities to enter a third partys home to legally search for the subject of the arrest warrant
C: holding that defendants ability to pay may be considered in assessing penalty under controlled substances act
D: holding  1227a2bi limits the meaning of controlled substance for removal purposes to the substances controlled under  802
A.