Rigid legal rules are ill-suited'" to an analysis of probable cause. Illinois v. Gates, 462
U.S. 213, 232 (1986) (citation omitted). Did the Court of Appeals violate this principle by
relying on a rule to find a minimally-sufficient probable cause to search the home, instead of
examining all the circumstances and seeing that the putative connection of drug-trafficking to the
home was utterly meaningless?

Did the Court of Appeals violate the principle that rigid legal rules are ill-suited to an analysis of probable cause by relying on a rule to find a minimally-sufficient probable cause to search the home, instead of examining all the circumstances and seeing that the putative connection of drug-trafficking to the home was utterly meaningless?