In this anticipatory warrant case, the package was delivered to the target residence but then moved to another residence. That created exigent circumstances for entry without a warrant. Officers also did a protective sweep, and retreated to get a search warrant. United States v. Anderson, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 171519 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 3, 2026):<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\nThe Court finds that the facts surrounding the entry into Anderson’s home are more similar to those in McGregor than those in Santa. Thus, McGregor controls and mandates the conclusion that exigent circumstances were present, justifying the warrantless entry into the residence. Here, as in McGregor, agents placed an electronic device into a package containing narcotics before completing a controlled delivery. When agents received the alert that the package had been opened, they reasonably believed that the defendant would discover the device, realize he was being watched, and attempt to destroy the narcotics. The McGregor court emphasized that both the identity of the defendant and the location where the package would be opened were not known. Similarly, here, law enforcement did not know whether Anderson would open the package and they did not know the ultimate location where the package would be opened. Indeed, law enforcement first obtained an anticipatory search warrant for the Maragaret Ave. address where Parcel 2 was to be delivered, fully expecting it would be opened there. They did not know, and could not have anticipated, that the package would be removed by Anderson from the initial location and taken to the Summer Savory St. residence.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
In Santa, on the other hand, the Court found that exigent circumstances were not present because there was no evidence to suggest that the individuals inside the apartment were aware they were being surveilled. The Santa Court similarly found that, to the extent any exigency existed, law enforcement was responsible for creating the exigency by conducting the controlled purchase of the narcotics.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
This Court emphasizes that here, unlike in Santa, law enforcement did not arrange for the package to be brought inside the residence. While law enforcement certainly played a role in the controlled delivery, they did not cause Defendant to retrieve the package from the Margaret Ave. location, drive the package to his residence, and bring the package inside the Summer Savory St. residence. Similarly, in McGregor, the Eleventh Circuit found that law enforcement did not create the exigency even though they arranged a controlled delivery and later entered the residence where the delivery was directed. Here, officers had an even more limited role in the exigency than the officers in McGregor as Defendant brought the package from Margaret Ave. to the Summer Savory St. residence. Thus, they did not create the exigent circumstances that justified law enforcement’s entry into the Summer Savory St. residence.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
In this anticipatory warrant case, the package was delivered to the target residence but then moved to another residence. That created exigent circumstances for entry without a warrant. Officers also did a protective sweep, and retreated to get a search … Continue reading