887 F.3d 272
6th Cir.2018Background
- A DEA controlled-delivery package containing methamphetamine was addressed to “B. Perkins” at 5831 Rowe Gap Rd, the defendant William (Billy) Perkins’s residence; a reliable informant and local officers identified Perkins as a meth dealer.
- DEA sought and obtained an anticipatory warrant that would become effective only if officer Brewer hand-delivered the package to Perkins (the warrant’s explicit triggering event).
- Brewer was briefed incorrectly and delivered the package to Perkins’s fiancée at the door; Perkins was not present and arrived about an hour later.
- Officers then executed the search of the residence and discovered evidence used to charge Perkins with possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine.
- Perkins moved to suppress; the magistrate recommended denial but the district court granted suppression. The government appealed.
- The Sixth Circuit reviewed factual findings for clear error and legal conclusions de novo, and affirmed suppression because the specified triggering event did not occur.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Perkins) | Defendant's Argument (Government) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an anticipatory warrant is voided when its triggering event (hand-delivery to Perkins) does not occur | Triggering event was not met because Brewer gave the package to Perkins’s fiancée, so the warrant never became effective and the search was unlawful | The delivery to someone at the residence who had authority (Perkins’s fiancée) satisfied the warrant in substance; courts should read triggering events commonsensically | Held: Warrant invalid. The triggering event required delivery to Perkins; delivery to another person did not satisfy the condition and the search was unlawful |
| Whether a commonsense or substantial-compliance reading excuses nonliteral delivery | Warrant language expressly required delivery “to Perkins”; courts must enforce the triggering condition the magistrate approved | The court should interpret the warrant commonsensically and treat delivery to an authorized resident as equivalent to delivery to Perkins | Held: Requiring delivery “to Perkins” is the only commonsense reading here; substituting a broader condition after the fact is impermissible |
| Whether the government preserved or could rely on alternative defenses (good faith or independent probable cause) | Suppression appropriate; no evidence magistrate considered this altered fact pattern | Government did not argue on appeal that the search was independently reasonable or that good-faith exception applies | Held: Government forfeited those arguments; court did not reach independent-reasonableness/good-faith merits |
Key Cases Cited
- Florida v. Harris, 568 U.S. 237 (validity of canine-scent alert in probable-cause analysis)
- United States v. Grubbs, 547 U.S. 90 (anticipatory warrants; triggering conditions create probable cause)
- United States v. Rey, 923 F.2d 1217 (failure to comply with anticipatory warrant’s trigger voids warrant)
- United States v. Ricciardelli, 998 F.2d 8 (need for ascertainable, preordained triggering conditions)
- United States v. Miggins, 302 F.3d 384 (commonsense reading of triggering events; avoid hypertechnical readings)
- United States v. Gendron, 18 F.3d 955 (receipt by named person interpreted as receipt at residence)
- Johnson v. United States, 333 U.S. 10 (magistrate’s role in issuing warrants)
- Groh v. Ramirez, 540 U.S. 551 (warrant requirement and consequences of noncompliance)
- United States v. Penney, 576 F.3d 297 (anticipatory-warrant analysis where operative transaction occurred in substance)