at Nusbaum’s residence. Because the officers did not deliver and Nusbaum did not accept the package, the condition was not met and the warrant was invalid. ¶13 But the State argues that delivery of the package is irrelevant because the issuing magistrate had probable cause to believe “there would be evidence of the drug order in the house.” Br. of Resp’t at 5. We disagree. ¶14 Probable cause to believe that a man has committed a crime on the street does not necessarily give rise to probable cause to search his home. Thein, 138 Wn.2d at 148 (citing State v. Dalton, 73 Wn. App. 132, 140, 868 P.2d 873 (1994)). And an officer’s general conclusions about drug dealers’ habits are, standing alone, insufficient to justify a search of a suspected drug dealer’s home. Thein, 138 Wn.2d at 148-49 (<HOLDING>); see also State v. Olson, 73 Wn. App. 348,
holding that a determination of probable cause does not bar a state law malicious prosecution claim where the claim is based on the police officers supplying false information to establish probable cause holding that consent searches do not require probable cause to justify the search of a home holding that broad generalizations do not alone establish probable cause holding that the accrual of attorneys fees alone is sufficient to establish cause holding that under fourth amendment standards for determining probable cause for arrest and probable cause for search and seizure are same