— does not support an inference that any specific one of the possible facts is itself probable. Probable cause is necessary to support a warrant, not merely one possibility, among many[.]” Defendant argues that that principle is controlling here. He reasons that equally available inferences include that the pornography that he ordered depicted only adults or, because the term “pornography” is itself vague, that the people involved could have been “partially unclothed.” If the affidavit contained nothing else, defendant’s point might be more persuasive. However, there was more. First, defendant was a registered sex offender, having previously been convicted of possession of child pornography. See State v. Westfall, 178 Or App 343, 350-51, 37 P3d 1030, rev den, 333 Or 595 (2001) (<HOLDING>). Second, the fact that, among all the places
holding that the defendants prior drug conviction for simple possession did not constitute a controlled substance offense because the plain language of  4b12b requires that the prior conviction involve possession with intent to distribute holding that a defendants prior conviction for possession of a controlled substance and felon in possession of a firearm helped support probable cause to search his motel room for evidence of burglary holding that employees conviction for possession of a controlled substance constituted gross misconduct holding that executing officers reasonably relied on judges determination that there was probable cause to search motel room for evidence of drug activity even though search warrant affidavit failed to mention a connection between motel room and criminal activity holding district court lacked discretion to permit defendant to stipulate to prior conviction in prosecution for being a felon in possession of a firearm