many cases”). See also United States v. Rojas, 671 F.2d 159, 165 (5th Cir.1979) ("[T]he facts necessary to show probable cause to arrest are not necessarily the same as those required to show probable cause to search.") (citing Melvin). In this case, as in Melvin and not Brouil-lette, it is clear that a shooting had occurred. Mendenhall had been placed at the scene with a gun. Mendenhall was suspected of having a nine-millimeter pistol and two nine-millimeter shell casings had been recovered at the scene. Obtaining and testing Mendenhall's weapon would have resolved the question of whether Mendenhall’s weapon had been fired and, if it had, whether it was the weapon used in the shooting. Cf. Warden, Maryland Penitentiary v. Hayden, 387 U.S. 294, 307, 87 S.Ct. 1642, 18 L.Ed.2d 782 (1967) (<HOLDING>); Rojas, 671 F.2d at 165 ("[Pjrobable cause to
holding that the mere assertion of constitutional right to refuse consent to search does not supply probable cause to search holding that probable cause is something more than mere suspicion holding that government may search for mere evidence of a crime and that in the case of mere evidence probable cause must be examined in terms of cause to believe that the evidence sought will aid in a particular apprehension or conviction holding that where other evidence established probable cause to believe that the defendant possessed controlled substances investigating officers had probable cause to search the defendants purse for similar evidence holding that on a motion for summary judgment the mere existence of a scintilla of evidence in support of the plaintiffs position will be insufficient and there must be evidence on which the jury could reasonably find for the plaintiff