United States v. Keith Donnell, 726 F.3d 1054

Federal agents executed an anticipatory search warrant at Keith Donnell’s trailer on the Red Lake Reservation after controlled buys linked a middleman (Roy) to Donnell as a drug source.
The affidavit identified the target as Donnell’s residence (trailer and curtilage) and conditioned probable cause on three triggering events: surveillance of Roy’s vehicle arriving and leaving Donnell’s residence, and confirmation that Roy delivered drugs to the buyer.
During the operation, agents lost sight of Roy’s vehicle for six minutes while it turned onto a driveway that led solely to Donnell’s house; surveillance resumed as Roy left and later delivered about two pounds of suspected marijuana to the agent.
The search recovered ~5 lbs of marijuana, $12,622 (including $2,000 marked buy money), and five firearms; Donnell made post-Miranda incriminating statements.
Donnell moved to suppress evidence and statements; the district court denied suppression, he pleaded guilty conditionally, and appealed the denial.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the anticipatory warrant’s triggering conditions were satisfied	Donnell: loss of visual contact for six minutes meant agents failed to observe Roy’s vehicle enter/leave the residence, so the warrant never triggered	Government: driveway leading exclusively to Donnell’s house is part of the residence; agents observed vehicle enter/leave that residence (despite brief loss) and other triggering conditions were met	Court: Affirmed — common‑sense reading includes the private driveway as part of the residence and triggering conditions were satisfied
Whether Donnell’s Mirandized statements are fruits of an illegal search	Donnell: statements flowed from an illegal search and must be suppressed	Government: search was lawful because triggering conditions were met; thus statements need not be suppressed	Court: Did not decide; unnecessary because warrant was valid (suppression of statements not addressed)

Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (standard for probable cause and common‑sense affidavit review)
United States v. Grubbs, 547 U.S. 90 (anticipatory warrant principles)
United States v. Hudspeth, 525 F.3d 667 (supporting common‑sense, non‑hypertechnical review of affidavits)
United States v. Lemon, 590 F.3d 612 (standard of review on suppression appeal)
United States v. Vesikuru, 314 F.3d 1116 (rejecting hypertechnical reading of triggering conditions)