ok just a quick reminder that the microphones are not for amplification they're for recording so keep your voice up save some time for rebuttal we don't have a case after you but if you need a little extra time we'll probably be inclined to give it to you ok because the police failed to wait for that acceptance anticipatory variants like the one used bilel have become an important tool for law enforcement officers especially in package interdiction cases like this one they give the officers ministerial to avoid any premature execution of these warrants either through intentional manipulation or simple misunderstanding of the words terms of the law be that  acceptance that condition requires a score it held only seven years ago both receipt and opening so if you have no opening your say in every case then you would be premature there could be equivalent acts of demeanor over the package this quote is only dealt with the situation where the package was opened that's the rule it's established and it could reaffirmed today conceivably similar acts such not a scenario this court needs to reach in this case it simply needs to reaffirm the buoy decision only seven years ago there the clerk held bet the state properly waited to execute its warrant until the defendant opened the from the state's brief in that case if the package was not open the read did not authorize the search of that location this quote simply needs to affirm who we and apply it to the facts here the opening of the package is what gave the police probable cause to believe it was the suspects threads and the weak case that's what triggers an anticipatory web based upon acceptance it's alleged easy to follow clear rule and then the eliminates the possibility for some of the first amendment abuses we might see ever arise there's little reason for officers to install this sort of breakaway filament tracking device used here which is designed to alert them when the package is opened and the rest of the wait for that opening that condition isn't reflected oranges it's not contained in the regulars of the world itself however it is contained in the application for a warrant and supporting the affidavits may contain the triggering condition for for potential police abuse is a necessary one under our constitution ever wise they might easily be able to arrest simply anyone who touches a package under the terms of such a warrant now that might mean that the police have to wait they have to follow a package potentially into a length in the area making their job more difficult but a citizen's right to be free from unlawful search and seizure tram's law enforcement convenience and that's an area if were otherwise the police might be able to arrest the innocent receptionist who takes in a package for his or her boss they might be able to search the dry cleaners in the basement of an apartment building that agrees to hold packages for residents who would like but the judge's ruling here that weren't requirements have been met because the livery of the package had been observed at the address it was in the war and that the order for the electronic monitoring device was a separate amendment to the to the war of the may have been separate but the application for the warrants as a supporting affidavit exactly of the type that care to use can be incorporated to specified the triggering condition and again acceptance as the triggering condition was the basis of the the real estate personnel could the police have simply a vested anyone who showed up on grandma's perch and took in the package harris himself never opens the package he doesn't look for police in the surrounding area where otherwise indicate that he has any knowledge that what he's picking up from his grandmother's perch contains illicit material the police simply had to wait for him to open it before they could confirm he knew it contained drugs the state's attorney the definition for acceptance the intent to retain rights anywhere doing in the case law it's merely mentioned in the re decision before the court there concluded that acceptance meant to receive an open and again it's the exact opposite of the argument the state interpreted triggering condition that has been recommended by so many courts across the country the states have human and good faith is also disingenuous for two reasons first the error here was the officers only thing  especially those that are involved in these kind of package interdictions frequently a duty to know in force their any cases that follow the state's intention retain proposal so the police could not reasonably mistake that is the state of the and crash mr harris as a rast because the police failed to wait for their seat and opening of the package here the officers executed the search warrant after defendant took possession of the package and after he placed it into his vehicle so all of the way i was mr harris any different from the receptionist and bluey who takes the package and puts it under the does because he had no intent retaining it's not your honor because in that specific situation the week or it's looked at the intent and spirit of that search warrant and also took into consideration the affiant of the expected that this package would get moved to another location and police officer here attested to the same expectation that the package was going to move which was why they put the device in there correct but again the difference again that warrant wasn't executed because the saw no movement of the package in the nail salon and second we didn't see any movement of the package here they certainly did the defendant approached the stoop and retrieved the package and placed it into his vehicle how much of a trip from the porch to the driveway well your honor again based on the facts of this case the defendant on the severely specific day that this package was delivered to his grandmother's home which was vacant at the time he decides to make a trip to that home and he leaves his car door open his car running he perceives it to the stoop and within a matter of thirty seconds he retrieves that plaque it package and he places to minion and control over that package i go to and would be included in consideration however the signaling device is merely a tool that the officer is using order to be able to track of it certainly officer represent the signaling device was likely to produce evidence giving rise to probable cause it could likely produce that's correct however it is not the end all and be all of being able to execute the search warrant the signaling device doesn't have to go off the package doesn't have to be opened in order for the officers to be able to execute search warrant the search warrant specifically indicates what the triggering events are for as harris were someone to take possession of the package and that the package and the  location to be searched location or vehicle but the package is brought into a what did what did the authorities know about mr harris the defendant here going into this do they have some information about him that he was somebody who was involved in this sort of trafficking they did not your honor for my understanding they did not have any information other than the fact that this package was brought in from california which is a state and a source known for now contacts trafficking and for bringing our katic right so they the officers while they were at the post office flagged the package based on its location and a few other criteria based on was there a survey was there any information is sometimes developed in cases like this that the person sending it addressing information was a fictitious person or entity but they did yesterday on i believe that the be looked up and address in the address did not correspond with that individual's name there is a record you know i'm i apologize i don't remember off the top of my head up i could perhaps be also referring to the fact that u sually up from the complaint that the officers also indicated that typically items are sense with an address listed on the package but perhaps a fictitious name i think that's what my at it referring to well that's that's the whole point typically that's what is done it wasn't done here wasn't he wasn't somebody who was suspicious to the police other than the fact that the dog sniffed the pad and the package and the entity that sent it wasn't known to be fictitious to the people and investigating so in circumstances like that wouldn't you think that that's why you have the film and to make sure that he opens it up and that he really wants to be in possession of what's inside this i disagree many warrants the officers really don't know information about the person that this package is to trust to or any of that information and i'm that's typically how anticipatory search warrants work for the most part there isn't a whole lot of information to go by by respect as to what they know about the targets however what defendant is trying to do is to box this court into creating a bright line rule for except when everybody sample is always trying to do is to get us to follow  the buoy case you were the folks who had the opposite position in their case we did however again that's based on the facts of bad search warrants and we the jury court itself indicated they at when taking into consideration the specific facts in the spirit and intent of the act search warrant except in that situation meant to receive an open however that shouldn't be a bright lightning for every single case anticipatory search warrant cases across the board because every case is to find every fact syrian or risk when you talk about the spirit and and of an anticipatory warrant it sounds like a lot of discretion on the part of the executing officers which is really the antithesis of their jobs period as a police officer certainly when it's the appropriate time to execute a search warrant is so that is discretionary just hypothetically have the next door neighbor come out knowing that in a nursing home and her house is on occupied and seen the package on her front porch went and picked it up and brought it inside her house police could execute the warrant right based on the wind itself yes they could execute t warrant however they chose not to because that's not the situation that occurred here the situation that occurred here is the defendant who approached the stoop and well what they chose not to do is they chose not to follow harris you know the buoy was followed a great distance across the city ready open and then they went in because there was an electronic filament that have been triggered so what we have here is a case of you know premature execution of the or because they didn't bother to follow him to wherever he was going to go perhaps that opened this package again your honor the officers it was indicated in the motion that it was a school day that there was a it's in the motion your honor there was some there wasn't testimony regarding i believe it was argued that it was there was a school nearby and the officers decided not to venture off into a pursuit into an unfamiliar neighborhood unfamiliar territory for them they were outside of the city of chicago what you're asking us to do is ignore the order with regard to the electronic filament as if that doesn't even exist and therefore then there was one right correct yes so in what you're saying it doesn't matter who's open or not so you're ignoring the fact that that is part and parcel of this war and i don't think we can ignore that if  there was it in there that we have a different case but you're asking us totally ignore that this and that about what i know i know i am not asking you to ignore the obviously this is this is it is a separate order i understand officers just said we know this package contains we're going to deliver it to a controlled delivery to particular address and we want to arrest anybody who picks it up or not we're not going to install a film and we're not going to track  again i think it's discretionary i don't think it's anybody who picks a package up i think has to be a specific someone who asserts civilian control over the package but certainly a signaling device neighbor the next door neighbor asserts dominion and control when she brings it into  she could have been worth she could have however again in that situation she was has a recipient she just didn't take a parakeet she took a package in nearly put it merely put it underneath the counter she didn't take the steps the defendant took in this situation simply she but he drove to a location the same day that the package was to be delivered and he took affirmative steps to go and retrieve that package and place it into his car and his testimony later at trial revealed that he he was going to an odd story but it happened to pass by his grandmother's home which was vacant to do a well being check and picked up the package there are certainly affirmative steps the defendant took here that are definitely different than the all salon woman and do we she merely sign for it in just suck it underneath the conner and four hours later of the defendant who again accepted that package with the intent possession but in this situation their respect fully i think that there could be an argument made that there was probable cause to execute that search warrant even without a signaling device going off based on the information that the officers were provided knowing situation the officers also didn't wait for the search for the signaling device to go off in fact the executed the search warrant inside the defendant's home four minutes after he took the package from stooping he placed it into his car into his home my college eyes and the officers there executed that search warrant and they found that parcel on opened on the defendant's pads and that clerk in us vs turner a case the defendant cites to indicated that when the defendant received that package triggering events within that search warrant took place and he asserted dominion and control over that package and they certainly didn't reverse the defendant's conviction or the motion and that case and again  vehicle walked up to the stoop took the package and placed it into his vehicle now there the defendant did begin removing the shipping we bowls from the package but again the package was not opened in the signaling device had not alerted at that point in trigger triggering condition also was satisfied in that case you know you can take shots at the he says that he's citing but the real case here is buoy and no orders are in order for us to go your way we would have to effectively you know say it's no longer valid press and i don't think that's true right now because i think that except as it was defined in we it was based again on the facts and circumstances of back case and that warrant we itself indicated th search warrants should not be read in a very hyper technical manner but should be read in more of a common sense fashion and a common sense fashion there was that the state said that they had to receive it and open it correct based the search warrant location that was described was unconstitutionally john or all and he was arguing that the search warrant should have been executed on the nail salon and not at the home later on which is an argument that's very different from the argument defendant   i i believe that we the court definitely tried to define the word acceptance and did so began based on the facts that case but it also indicated their acceptance meant receiving something and undertaking a sufficient act that indicates an intent to retain nets and how obviously how that the nail salon woman did not establish that criteria however the defendant did  in india instance again just because here we have a situation where the package was not opened and the signaling device did not go up the signaling device is merely a tool that is used for surveillance purposes it's even  in the petition for the signaling device that is it visual surveillance to a visual surveillance tool in order to for the officers to keep track of the package there are situations where the officers undercover deliver a package they have no idea where this package is going to end up it could be in a home it could be in a car it could be anywhere however this is a way to maintain some sort of surveillance on the package especially when it's out of the officers site and again i don't think by affirming the trial court ruling here in denying the defendants motion to quash arrest and suppress evidence would this court in any way be going against  search warrant itself the defendant does refer to the word except in the complaint of the search warrant the complaint for the search warrant is three pages long the introductory paragraph of the complaints mirrors the act of the search warrant the very last paragraph of the complaint indicates the word except and it basically says they are to search as her anyone taking control or any other the location where the parcel is accepted into however your honors again the introductory paragraph and the rest of the paragraph mirrors what the search warrant and the intent of the  to take possession and for the location to be searched or vehicle they acted the package was brought into and that certainly was the case that occurred here  i would also i would also argue that the defense the consul here is referring to the application for the search warrant again for the complaint and he indicates that the signaling and was asked tell me about the box and bat and since the defendants proceed proceedings to tell officer lim parents they he was in financial difficulty they i t had a friend from california who had agreed to send him some can order for the defendant to be able to sell his cannabis and make some money the defendant indicated that he believes that the patch package contained about three ounces of cannabis and that he had been smoking cannabis since he was seventeen years old certainly the defendant is disputing the that we did not prove knowledge knowledge was certainly proven through the defendant's words as i just indicated what he told officer lin paris's inculpatory statement as well as the defendant's action again not to belabor exactly what the defendant did as i indicated earlier his actions of proceeding to the stoop retrieving the package within a total span of thirty seconds with his car running car door open placing it into his vehicle he showed no curiosity for the package he acted swiftly and he did so because he wanted to leave the scene he knew what was in that package the defendant arguing that the trier of fact got it wrong by believing off a certain empiricists testimony as credible and not the defendant's testimony where he did night at trial making those statements is incorrect the credibility of the witnesses briefly just to respond to your pathetic will i think of where the that would allow the state to arrest anyone who touches a package that excluded terms like acceptance or a similarly limited triggering condition would be invalid and that's what the state wants to argue this warrants essentially is the state can't get a rare and gooey decision to make the exact opposite claims in that case and the facts there are the same triggering is the at the true condition is acceptance in both of these cases the state only argues now that it should be anyone taking possession when the application for where and which can be taken as part of the world as a whole for the triggering conditions purposes states that acceptance will be the trigger what about the decision in turn there which the state referred to actually states that a package would not be accepted if an individual rocked up from the street and took a package off the front porch that case really dealt with a rare that was concerning room someone of authority from the address listed had taken the package and that's what really was at issue but it's hypothetical was exactly in line with your honor's hypothetical about a neighbor and it answered exactly as this court should simply having a neighbor excuse me come pick up the package would not constitute acceptance discretion of the officers here must be clear and ministerial they can't simply rest center in the touch as the package whether they're familiar with suburban lucan were not but the fourth amendment requires is that they wait for the package to be open