{"id":53455,"date":"2022-10-29T09:13:32","date_gmt":"2022-10-29T14:13:32","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=53455"},"modified":"2022-10-29T09:13:32","modified_gmt":"2022-10-29T14:13:32","slug":"w-d-pa-anticipatory-sws-triggering-condition-was-package-going-in-house-landlords-taking-it-in-sufficient","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=53455","title":{"rendered":"W.D.Pa.: Anticipatory SW&#8217;s triggering condition was package going in house; landlord&#8217;s taking it in sufficient"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<p>The triggering condition in this anticipatory warrant was the package going inside the home. Here, the landlord took it in, not defendant. Still, under Grubbs, that was sufficient. United States v. Tabor, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 194653 (W.D. Pa. Oct. 26, 2022):<\/p>\n\n\n\n<!--more-->\n\n\n\n<blockquote class=\"wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow\"><p>In this case, the warrant is similar to those upheld in Grubbs, 547 U.S. at 92 (requiring &#8220;recei[pt] by a person[ ]&#8221;), and Miggins, 302 F.3d at 394 (requiring that package be &#8220;taken by someone&#8221;). The triggering event approved by the magistrate judge required only that the parcel be taken inside the house. The warrant is broader than \u00b6 25 of the affidavit because the magistrate judge did not impose the additional condition that the action be taken inside by an occupant. The triggering condition for execution of the warrant was met. It is undisputed that the parcel was taken into the Target Location, albeit by the landlord. In sum, Tabor&#8217;s contention that the evidence should be suppressed due to a failure of the triggering event is without merit.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n<p>It does, however, leave the government with a proof problem at trial: Knowing possession.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>The triggering condition in this anticipatory warrant was the package going inside the home. Here, the landlord took it in, not defendant. Still, under Grubbs, that was sufficient. United States v. Tabor, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 194653 (W.D. Pa. Oct. &hellip; <a class=\"more-link\" href=\"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=53455\">Continue reading <span class=\"meta-nav\">&rarr;<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[90],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-53455","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-anticipatory-warrant"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/53455","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=53455"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/53455\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":53456,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/53455\/revisions\/53456"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=53455"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=53455"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=53455"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}