Opinion ID: 2976990
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: On February 12, Meffer bought propane.

Text: 4. On February 15, officers noticed that the Gratiot address was protected by two surveillance cameras. 5. On February 15 and March 3, Meffer purchased spray paint. 6. On February 15, February 21, and March 8, a detective noticed an odor near the Gratiot property that was consistent between the first two days. 7. On March 1, a confidential informant identified the Gratiot address as a methamphetamine lab. 8. On March 3, Meffer visited the Lenfesty property. While he was there, individuals carried items into the building and worked on creating what appeared to be a secret compartment in a van. 9. Meffer associated with known methamphetamine users. None of this remaining evidence is challenged, and the district court did not err in concluding that this provided a magistrate with an ample basis for finding a fair probability that contraband would be discovered at these searched locations. Thus, the affidavit supported a finding of probable cause even when we remove all of the allegedly false statements. For that reason, we affirm the district court’s denial of Mastromatteo’s motion for a Franks hearing.