In People v. Darwich, 226 Mich App 635, 636-637; 575 NW2d 44 (1997), the affidavit stated that the defendant was involved in the distribution of marijuana at his place of business. Id. at 637. The affidavit relied on the experience of the affiant to connect that criminal activity to defendant's residence. Id. at 638. The Court held that the magistrate who considered the affidavit could rely on the affiant's statement regarding his experience to support a finding of probable cause, stating: The magistrate is not required to accept blindly an affiant's statements. Rather, the magistrate's duty is to examine the affiant's reliance on the affiant's experience in the same way the magistrate examines other facts and circumstances presented in the affidavit and decide whether, when read in a common-sense and realistic manner, they together establish probable cause. Thus, we find that an affiant's representations in a search warrant affidavit that are based upon the affiant's experience can be considered along with all the other facts and circumstances presented to the examining magistrate in determining probable cause. Id. at 639. In the instant case, the affidavit stated that no significant quantity of marijuana was found at defendant's store. The affiant stated that his experience led him to believe that it is common for drug dealers to package and store narcotics at one location and distribute them at another. These statements, together with the statements implicating defendant in the selling of narcotics, lead to a logical inference that defendant stored elsewhere the materials used in the operation. Defendant's residence was a logical place to look for the source of the marijuana packets sold at defendant's store. Accordingly, the issuing magistrate was justified in finding probable cause to search defendant's residence in the instant case, and the trial court improperly granted defendant's motion to suppress the evidence obtained pursuant to that warrant. Id. at 640.