or storage. The Carr affidavit provided no basis to either limit the possible sites or suggest that Rowland’s home was more likely than the otherwise endless possibilities. As a consequence, the possible inference that Rowland would take the tapes home, in and'of itself, is insufficient to provide a substantial basis for concluding there was probable cause to believe the contraband would be in Rowland’s home at the time the search was to take place. Given the absence of any facts in the affidavit linking the contraband to Rowland’s home, the magistrate had no information from which to determine, at the time he issued the warrant, there was probable cause to believe the contraband would be at Rowland’s residence when the search was to take place. Cf. Hendricks, 743 F.2d at 654-56 (<HOLDING>); State v. Goble, 88 Wash.App. 503, 945 P.2d
holding anticipatory warrant for search of defendants home was invalid because facts made known to magistrate did not establish at time warrant was issued the required nexus between the contraband to be seized which was mailed to defendants post office box and defendants home holding anticipatory warrant for search of defendants home was invalid when defendant was required to pick up suitcase containing contraband at airport and there was no information indicating defendant would take suitcase home or otherwise linking defendants residence to illegal activity holding anticipatory warrant for search of defendants home was invalid because affidavit provided no assurance that defendant would take package to his home after collecting it at the airport despite fact that warrant contained condition that it was not to be executed until package arrived at defendants house 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 anticipatory warrant for search of defendants home was invalid because contraband was picked up by defendant rather than being delivered to his home and affidavit failed to provide facts establishing a nexus between contraband and defendants home