3believe that evidence of the crimes described in the affidavit would be found at the Andover residence.
A. Probable Cause Existed to Issue the Search Warrant
.In this case, probable cause clearly existed to justify the issuance of the searchwarrant for the first search warrant issued on December 2, 2005, for the residence at 1104 Andover. A copy of that affidavit and the warrant for the search of the residence areattached hereto as Exhibit 1.Courts in this District have stated on several occasions that a determination of probable cause by a neutral judge or magistrate is to be accorded “great deference.”
SeeUnited States v. Reno
, 196 F.Supp.2d 1150, 1157 (D.Kan. 2002) (citing
United States v.Finnigin
, 113 F.3d 1182, 1185 (10th Cir. 1997));
United States v. Downes
, 2001WL 121951, *3 (D.Kan., decided Jan. 12, 2001). They have also stated that:“In deciding a suppression motion based upon the asserted failure of the affidavits to provide probable cause for the warrant, the reviewing courtmust remember that the magistrate is permitted to draw reasonableinferences from the affidavits. . .
United States v. Edmonson,
962 F.2d1535, 1540 (10th Cir. 1992);
United States v. Peveto,
881 F.2d 844, 850(10th Cir. 1989),
493 U.S. 943 (1989). When reviewing amagistrate's issuance of a search warrant the court must determine whether the magistrate had a substantial basis for concluding that probable causeexisted.
Illinois v. Gates,
462 U .S. 213, 236 (1983).”
United States v. Pierce
, 2000 WL 821386, *1 (D.Kan. 2000). According to
, the test to be employed by a reviewing court is thetotality of the circumstances, because “[p]robable cause is a fluid concept – turning on theassessment of probabilities in particular factual contexts – not readily, or even usefully,reduced to a neat set of legal rules.”
462 U.S. at 232. The Tenth Circuit Court of