Cir.2002) (citing cases); United States v. Jones, 159 F.3d 969, 974-75 (6th Cir.1998) (same; finding probable cause to search the suspect’s residence though he was not seen selling drugs there but on the premises). When coupled with the anonymous tips, and the muriatic acid, and the fundamental fact that Defendant could not manufacture methamphetamine in the United States Post Office, the affidavit showed a fair probability that Defendant did so at his home. See United States v. Higgins, 557 F.3d 381, 389 (6th Cir.2009) (stating that “[t]he Fourth Amendment requires that a warrant must be supported by probable cause, i.e. a fair probability that contraband or evidence will be found in a particular place”) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); cf. Carpenter, 360 F.3d at 594 (<HOLDING>). Alternatively, as the United States asserts,
holding that no federal nexus is required holding that an affidavit describing a marijuana field near the residence to be searched and a road between failed to establish the required nexus between the premises and the criminal activity holding that for recovery under the mississippi tort claims act to be barred because of a victims criminal activity at the time of the injury it must beshown that the criminal activity has some causal nexus to the wrongdoing of the tortfeasor holding that a nexus between the corporate officers or directors official activity and the matter for which indemnification is sought must be shown though no more than a nexus whether a nexus exists is a question of fact to be determined by the trial court considering all the circumstances surrounding the proposed indemnification holding that there must be a causal connection between the advertising activity and the injury alleged in the underlying complaint