In State v. Wotring, 167 W. Va. 104, 279 S.E.2d 182 (1981), the Court rejected the appellant's contention that the search of her home pursuant to a warrant was illegal where the supporting affidavit filed by the investigating officer "contained an assertion that the affiant witnessed a drug transaction on the property to be searched." Id. at 111, 279 S.E.2d at 188. The ruling in Wotring took into consideration the fact that "the affiant stated that he saw the transaction occur on the appellant's premises," which "gave rise to more than a mere belief that the thing to be seized could be found on the premises." Id. at 110, 279 S.E.2d at 187.