No. IMO that wouldn’t be anywhere close to enough to establish probable cause that a crime was committed and evidence could be found there. There has to be something more.
It might be interesting to hear what you and everyone else would require as a judge to establish that there is reasonable suspicion to indicate a crime was committed and that evidence could be found in a specific location, such that that location could be searched and even dismantled, in order to find evidence.
Remembering that the fourth amendment to the constitution holds that:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
That's really a great question.
Considering they were searching under a concrete slab that had already been poured over the compacted dirt BM was hired to move, we know they were likely searching for a deceased person. Or, property connected to her, or to the crime itself (that would implicate the person responsible).
So first I'd need documentation to show that the likelihood of her still being alive, is very low. Such things as a complete lack of normal activity (for her) would have all had to cease on the same day. All banking, contact with family, friends, co-workers, social media use, missed appointments, meds not taken (if she uses a pill organizer) or prescriptions not picked up/refilled, nothing missing from the home (suitcase, passport, clothing, etc.) to implicate she left on her own, things of that nature.
Next, I'd need to see documentation that connects her directly to that location. Much more than the fact that BM was hired to work on site, I'd need something concrete like, his vehicle's GPS data (or his google location data from his phone) shows him to be at that site on either the 8th, 9th or 10th, when he said he was in Denver that weekend (or at least on the Sunday). The data would have to show he was there
before the concrete was poured but
after SM went missing. Or it could be something like a delivery to the location, that he signed for on-site, on a day he shouldn't have been there.
Then, IF LE had already spoken to the property owner and used ground penetrating radar or whatever that machine is, and it hit on something under the concrete that shouldn't have been there, and that was included in the affidavit as well, then I think I'd go ahead and sign off. But even without that last bit, if it could be reasonably demonstrated to me that she is a.) likely deceased b.) that her husband's Denver alibi is not accurate and c.) data places him at that site immediately before she was reported missing, then I think I'd issue the warrant.
I'm sure I missed a ton of legal stuff, but that's why I'm not a judge
(or a lawyer!) Still a really great question.