transform suspicion into probable cause”); United States v. Klump, 536 F.3d 113, 118 (2d Cir.2008) (stating that contraband or evidence of crime in plain view during “circumscribed search may be used to establish probable cause to obtain a warrant to conduct a broader search”); United States v. Perez, 144 F.3d 204, 208 (2d Cir.1998) (recognizing plastic baggies as packaging tools of drug trade); United States v. Wagner, 989 F.2d 69, 73 (2d Cir.1993) (recognizing controlled purchases as “powerful corroborative evidence” in determining probable cause); United States v. Fama, 758 F.2d 834, 838 (2d Cir.1985) (concluding that large amounts of unexplained cash supported probable cause for search warrant); see also United States v. Allebach, 526 F.3d 385, 387 & n. 4 (8th Cir.2008) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, whether or not Arnold had
holding that the evidence was sufficient to support a conviction under  856 where premises contained two white envelopes containing thirtytwo packs of crack cocaine equipment required for the manufacture and packaging of crack cocaine fortyone white envelopes containing particles of crack cocaine and crack cocaine stored in a laundry bag in the bathroom holding that torn bag corners and steel wool which can serve as crack pipe filter support probable cause holding that inevitability was not established by an officers testimony that if she had not mistakenly thought that the defendants bag had been abandoned she would have used her narcotics dog to sniff the bag and establish probable cause for a warrant holding that all data necessary to show probable cause for the issuance of a search warrant must be contained within the four corners of the affidavit holding that the defendants prior distribution of crack was admissible to prove that he had intent and knowledge regarding crack found in a gym bag