The conditions precedent for execution of this anticipatory warrant were vague, but not so vague that it was unreasonable when executed. “The Court … finds and recommends that both triggering events for the warrant occurred. Moreover, even if those events had not occurred, Defendant consented to the searches in question after a legally executed Terry stop.” United States v. Halliburton, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18419 (C.D. Ill. Feb. 5, 2018):
Here, the warrants are vague about the conditions that triggered the warrants’ validity. According to them, authority to execute the search arose “once the parcel has been delivered by law enforcement personnel.” It does nothing to answer to whom or to where the parcel should be delivered. This, out of context, would give the Government authority to deliver the parcel to anyone at any address, thereby failing completely to guard against government overreach through a general warrant, which is prohibited. So, obviously, the warrants alone, when taken out of context from the complaints, inadequately define the conditions precedent to execution of the warrant.
However, anticipatory warrants do not fail because they inadequately define the conditions precedent. Grubbs, 547 U.S. at 99. Instead, the warrants must only particularly describe the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized. Id. at 97. These warrants define both. First, the warrants authorized the search of “any person taking control of” the packages and “1404 E. Main, Decatur, Illinois Macon County or any premises or vehicle within the State of Illinois that [the packages are] brought into.” Second, the warrants authorize officers to seize very specific evidence of unlawful possession of cannabis with intent to deliver, including controlled substances, paraphernalia, and other related items. The warrants themselves are therefore sufficiently particular.