An anticipatory search warrant was issued for 1921 but was delivered to 1911 because of the use of false addresses. The police entered to seize the package. Defendant doesn’t show he has standing in either the package or the place searched; he was neither the addressor nor addressee on the package. Installing the GPS on the package wasn’t a “search.” Monitoring the GPS device wasn’t a search until the package went into the house. United States v. Rosario, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 32995 (D. Alaska Feb. 17, 2017), adopted, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 32085 (D. Alaska Mar. 7, 2017):
Although a portion of the warrant became invalid to the extent it authorized the search of 1921 Parkside Drive when the Task Force officers learned that 1911 was the package’s intended address, total suppression of the evidence obtained through a partially valid warrant is generally inappropriate. See United States v. SDI Future Health, Inc., 568 F.3d 684, 707 (9th Cir. 2009) (holding that partially invalid warrants are severable unless “the valid portion of the warrant is a relatively insignificant part of an otherwise invalid search.”) (quoting United States v. Kow, 58 F.3d 423, 428 (9th Cir.1995)).
There was probable cause to monitor the GPS tracking device in the package despite the later revelation that 1921 Parkside Drive was the incorrect address. The state judge’s finding of probable cause, which justified the monitoring of the GPS device, remains unchallenged. This Court concludes that law enforcement was permitted to monitor the device under the terms of the original, anticipatory warrant.