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
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 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 holding that direct evidence linking a crime to the particular place to be searched is not required to support a finding of probable cause 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 holding that plaintiff was required to plead and prove the absence of probable cause to support his bivens claim