anticipatory search warrant actually was an unending one i guess they didn't get the first one right so that in that one said the trigger triggering event will be receiving a signal emitted from the electronic tracking equipment contained in the subject who are signed off on these warrants are not signing off with the understanding that the agents are going to make determinations it is not giving them some sort of latitude that they would get in the ordinary search but rather this is like a package the postal inspector tell us apartments on the second floor of a complex where you could not see his apartment even from the ground floor so the agents who waited outside in the parking lot area and out of the front  area they had no idea for not three minutes like investigate her what was going on but not for fifteen not for twenty or thirty or forty five but for an entire hour and there was nothing that happened until  substituted another substance for it so there would be no danger of of anything happening here they had it for under the period of i'd say about a week and a half to two weeks in their possession they didn't do anything other than theoretical sort of fact intensive answer that you've given me that is in the in the context of a search warrant of this kind is it permissible to consider whether there search to go forward even in the face of the precise in terms of the condition that having been met i understand that i don't believe that's happened here but what i'm trying to figure invalidated it is because that's what they asked for they asked for it they got what they asked for had they done something like invest a crew where they had alternatives such as it trade or if it goes into the premises we have options they didn't ask for that they didn't get had approval without approval by a court the agents are not empowered to decide what the fourth and then requirements of certain seizure laws are on their own they relied on the court and they got exactly what they wanted and it turned out not to be something that they found desirable when they didn't do the other things they could have done such  surveillance people inside the building mopping floors on the stairwells doing things to see whether the client that mr jones was actually in the hallways going to other places with the with the goods because they said it had to be opened within his on those alternatives that you mention like having surveillance people mopping the floors in such a case what requiring a case doesn't really require them to do that but if they want to prove the fact that they had to prove that he was not somewhere else in the apartment was only a n r it was only in the his peculiar suite and not somewhere else in the apartment building complex during that electronic device within the package gives the signal that subject has been opened there's that is correct the second part also discusses that the electronic signal will  dispose of the two current cardboard boxes and he was seen at that point and within that time there was no evidence indicating that he had left before that now the fact should keep in mind also is that it wasn't someone else that brought those two boxes down to to discard that it was the defendant himself which further confirmed the fact that he had in fact in the one who knew possession of the package the entire time there is no there's nothing in the record which suggests that after defendant close the door and took delivery  dangerous conceded during the motion suppressed had that package been opened somewhere else there would not be probable cause in the interest research one could not have been executed therefore the trigger event here are looking at only on a reasonable basis based the language in the affidavit is that the event takes possession the package takes inside the apartment and in fact opens it inside his apartment now the indicator being the electronic device malfunctioning whether that's supposed to go off that if i if i may dress the some of the other points that have been raised by defendant in that brief including the the black white issue in the movement of the container as a district court help in terms of able to view certain component components of the study that weren't visible without movement there was nothing gained here by actually moving the container there was no other information sought it was simply moved aside from the floor on when expectation of privacy that society is prepared to consider reasonable is in french we can't we can't deem defendants expectation here privacy to be reasonable he's essentially arguing that he has an expectation of privacy information relating to contraband and information which he didn't even likely know existed the power on his hands in fact he exposed his hands to the public by leaving his apartment we can argue that if he has special expectation of privacy it would be it would be very similar to charging that the use of a flashlight at night time constitutes a search if that if that were the case then every time there was a traffic stop  thermal imager in a sense are allowed the officers to have sort of a video camera in the thermal imager penetrates especially through the walls and allow the officers to see what's going on inside the home it's with most most private functions as to what they were doing that is clearly not the case or there is the author why the light simply amplifies what's already visible what the defendant exposed to the public is exposed thought testified in this case of the triggering device triggered outside of the palace apartment the condition for a search warrant was not in that that's on excerpts of record two sixty six and two sixty seven how  can things be in this case if they waited an hour for any action to be undertaken and lastly the fourth and then the particularity requirement is violated when agencies are allowed to interpret a warrant by redefining