With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". warrant application. See Gates, 462 U.S. at 240, 103 S.Ct. 2317; cf. United, States v. Lawson, 999 F.2d 985, 987 (6th Cir.1993) (stating that in determining whether there is probable cause to support a warrant, the issuing magistrate is “entitled to draw reasonable inferences about where evidence is likely to be kept, based on the nature of the evidence and the type of offense” (internal quotations omitted)). In this ease, a magistrate could infer from the affidavit that Rowland would be unlikely to view or store the video tapes at his place of employment. A further possible inference was that, after removing the tapes from his workplace, Rowland would take the tapes home to view or store. Rowland’s home, however, was but one of an otherwise unlimited possible sites for 268-69 (1997) (<HOLDING>); see also Lalor, 996 F.2d at 1582-83 (holding,

A: holding anticipatory warrant for search of defendants home was invalid because facts made known to magistrate did not establish at time warrant was issued the required nexus between the contraband to be seized which was mailed to defendants post office box and defendants home
B: 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
C: holding anticipatory warrant for search of defendants home was invalid when defendant was required to pick up suitcase containing contraband at airport and there was no information indicating defendant would take suitcase home or otherwise linking defendants residence to illegal activity
D: holding anticipatory warrant for search of defendants home was invalid when defendant was required to pick up suitcase containing contraband at airport and there was no assurance at time warrant was issued that defendant would take suitcase to his home
A.