we must then, in order to assess whether the Fourth Amendment's particularity requirement was satisfied, ascertain whether the magistrate had a substantial basis for concluding that probable cause supported the seizure of all the business records of the Pennsylvania corporations. Id. {16 Reviewing Barton's affidavit in its entirety, we first conclude that the magistrate had a substantial basis for determining that probable cause existed to believe that evidence of flegal conduct would be found at the places designated in the warrant. A substantial basis existed because the twenty-one page affidavit submitted by Barton included extensive and detailed information regarding Norris's allegedly fraudulent business scheme. See United States v. Kail, 804 F.2d 441, 444 (8th Cir.1986) (<HOLDING>); State v. Bailey, 675 P.2d 1203, 1206 (Utah
holding that a magistrate had a substantial basis to support a finding of probable cause because the affidavit recounted the alleged criminal activity in detail holding that even if information in an affidavit was provided in reckless disregard of the truth appropriate course of action is to sever that information from the affidavit and determine whether sufficient information remained in order for the magistrate to find probable cause holding that magistrate must have substantial basis for concluding that probable cause exists holding that a magistrate had a substantial basis for determining that probable cause existed where the supporting affidavit elaborated on the crime in detail holding that under fourth amendment standards for determining probable cause for arrest and probable cause for search and seizure are same