T hi s orderand j udgm enti s notbinding prece dentexceptunderthe doctrines of * law o f th e c a se , res ju d icata an dc o llate ra l es to p p e l. Itm ayb e c ited , h o w e v e r, f o r its p e r s u a s iv e v a lu e c o n s i s te ntwithF e d . R. Ap p . P . 3 2 . 1 ( e f f. De c . 1 , 2 0 0 6 ) an d1 0 thCir . R. 3 2 . 1 (ef f. Jan . 1 , 2 0 0 7 ). 

## F I LED United States C ourt of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### D e c e m b e r20,2006 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS

T E N T H C IR C U IT

__________________________ UNI T E D S T AT E S OF AM E RI CA , Pl ai nt i ff - A ppel l ee, v. J OAQUI N S E RR ANO, D e fe n d a n t - A p p e llan t. N o. 05- 2223 ( D . N ew M exi co) ( D. Ct . No . CR- 0 4 - 1 5 8 J C)

____________________________ ORDE R AND J UDGM EN T * B efor e O’ BRI EN , Mc WI L L I A MS , and M c CO NNELL , C i rcui tJudg es.

Jo a q u in S e rra n o c o m p lain s o f th e d istric t co u rt’s d e n ial o f h is m o tio n to s uppr es s evi dence w i t houtan evi dent i ar yhear i ng. A ti s s ue i s w het heran a n ticip a to ryse a rc h w a rra n t w a s b a se d u p o n p ro b a b le c a u se a n d o th e rw ise v a lid irre sp e c tiv e o f

th e su bjec tiv e c o n c e rn s a g e n ts m a yh a v e h a rb o re d a b o u t it s efficacy . S i nce the vali dityof the w arr ant i s m easured byobj ect i ve st and ards a hear i ng t o pr obe t he off i cer ’ s pos s i bl e r es er vat i ons w as unnece s s ar y . A nd, s i nce- 2-

t h e d i s t r i c tc o u r t ’ s a n a l y s i s o f t h o s e o bj e c t i v e fa c t o r s wa s l e g a l l yc o r r e c t , we a ffi r m. I . B ackgr ound I n J anuary2004, a r el i abl e conf i dent i al s our ce ( C S) i nfor m ed Speci al A gentJ oe M at a t hatSer r ano offer ed t o s el l hi m t hr ee ki l ogr ams of coc ai ne for $17, 000. 00 eac h. O n J anuary11, 2004, Ser r ano t ol d C S he pl anned t o t r avel t he nextdayfr om R os w el l t o A l buquer que, N ew M exi co, fort he drug s al e. Ser r ano s a i d h e wo u l d c a l l CS wh e n h e a r r i v e d . On J a n u a r y1 2 , S e r r a n o t e l e p h o n e d CS a n d s ta te d h e h a d th re e re a lly g o o d “ c a rs ” a n d w o u ld s o o n b e in A lb u q u e rq u e . Feder al A gentW es tt aped thi s conver s at i on. W es tt hen author ed an a ffi davi ts eeki ng t o obt ai n an ant i ci pat or ys ear ch w ar r ant . A ft ers t at i ng t he bac kgr ound fac t s ( as w e have s etfor t h i n t he par agr aph above) t he affi davi tcont i nued: O n Ja n u a ry1 2 , 2 0 0 4 , the C S w ill m a k e tele p h o n ic c o n tac t w ith SE R R A N O and arr ange a m eetl ocat i on . . . t o negot i at e t he t hr eek ilo g ra m c o c a in e tra n sa c tio n . D u rin g th e m e e tin g , the C S w ill i nt r oduce a n under coveragent . Subse quentt o under cover n e g o tiatio n s, th e u n d e rc o v e r a g e n t w ill d ire c t th e C S to tra v e l to S ERR ANO ’ s r e s i d e n c e . . . t o v i e w t h e c o c a i n e . . . . Up o n t h e CS vi ew i ng t he coc ai ne t hatSE R R A N O i nt ends t o s el l t o t he C S and t he under coveragent , t he C S w i l l exi tt he r es i dence and pr ovi de su rv e ill a n c e a g e n ts w ith a p re -d e ter m in e d sig n a l at w h ich tim e a g e n ts w ill e x e c u te th is s e a rc h w a rra n t. T hi s w ar r antw i l l notbe effec t i ve and maynotbe exe cut ed unt i l aft er the C S v iew s the co ca ine o n Jan u ary1 2 , 2 0 0 4 at [S erran o ’s r es i dence ] . I f t he coc ai ne i s l ocat ed el s ew her e t hi s w ar r antw i l l not b e e x e c u te d .- 3-

(V o l. I, D o c. 58 , ¶¶ 1 0 -11 ). Th a te v e n i n g , CS me tS e r r a n o a n d J e s u s Ra mi r e z a ta r e s t a u r a n twh e r e CS i nt r oduced Serr ano t o U nder coverA gentM at a. T heynegot i at ed t he s al e and agr eed i tw oul d t ake pl ace atSer r ano’ s hom e l at ert hatday . Ser r ano and Ram i r ez st at ed theyw ou l d call w hen t he co cai ne arr i ved and al so sol i ci t ed fu ture sal es, as s ur i ng t hei rnew cus t om er s t heycoul d pr ovi de t w o ki l ogr ams perw eek. A tappr oxi m at el y12: 30 on t he morni ng of J anuary13, 2004, C S cont act ed M a ta to in fo rm M a ta h e w a s w ith S e rr a n o a n d th e d e liv e ry w a s o n its w a y . Shor t l yt her eaf

t er , M at a made a r ecor ded t el ephone c al l t o C S, w ho handed the p h o n e to S erran o . S erran o told M ata to c o m e to h is ho u se b ec au se “ they ” w ere p u lli n g in rig h t n o w . M a ta d e c lin e d , sta tin g h e w ish e d to p o stp o n e th e d e a l u n til late r th a t m o rn in g . F o llo w in g th is c o n v e rsa tio n , M a ta c a lled C S a n d to ld h im to l e a v e S e r r a n o ’ s h o me . A fe w mi n u t e s l a t e r , CS me twi t h DEA a g e n t s . CS i nfor m ed t hem S er r ano had c al l ed r i ghtaft erC S l eftt he hous e t o t el l hi m t he coca i ne had a r r i ved. Ser r ano t hr eat ened CS w i t h death i f t he t r ans act i on w as not compl et ed. M at a t hen made t w o t el ephone c al l s t o t he i ncr eas i ngl yagi t at ed Ser r ano and e ventual l yar r anged fort he t r ans act i on t o occuratappr oxi m at el yt en t hatm or ni ng, agr eei ng t o payan addi t i onal $1, 500. 00 t o at one fort he p o stp o n e m e n t. At 1 1 : 1 5 t h a tmo r n i n g , M a t a c o n t a c t e d S e r r a n o . S e r r a n o a s k e d wh e t h e rCS w as goi ng t o come t o t he hous e t o s ee the coc ai ne and w het herC S had t heT h e re c o rdd o e s n o tc o nta inth e re a s o nf o rth e d e l ay. 1

- 4- “pape r s . ” A tappr oxi m at el ynoon, M at a r ece i ved a c al l fr om Ser r ano w ho th re a ten e d h e w o u ld g e t rid o f th e c o c a in e b e c a u se h e w a n ted to re tu rn to R o sw e ll. M a ta s tate d C S w o u ld b e th e re in ten m in u tes . C S im m e d iate lyw e n t to

1 S e rra n o ’s h o u se w h e re h e w a s s h o w n th re e re c tan g u lar -sh a p e d b ric k s w ra p p e d in bl ack a nd br ow n t ape. Ser r ano s t at ed t heyw er e coc ai ne. C S l eftt he hous e and gave the pr e- det er m i ned s i gnal . T he age nt s ent er ed t he r es i dence , s ecur ed t he p re m ise s, a n d g a v e th e o c c u p a n ts a c o p yo f th e a n ticip a to ryse a rc h w a rra n t. U p o n e n try , the a g e n ts fo u n d a lo a d e d b lac k C o lt . 3 5 7 re v o lv e r w ith in S e rra n o ’s r e a c h a n d o b se rv e d th e th re e re c tan g u lar p a c k a g e s o n a n e n d tab le in th e liv in g ro o m . A fie ld te s t o n th e c o n te n ts y ie ld e d a p o s itiv e re s u lt fo r c o c a in e . A tt hatpoi nt , t he age nt s obt ai ned a s econd s ear ch w ar r ant . T heyt hen s ei zed the 3. 54 gr os s ki l ogr ams of coc ai ne, m i s cel l aneous document s , t he r evol verand ot her item s liste d o n th e in v e n to ryre tu rn o f th e se c o n d se a rc h w a rra n t. O n t he r etur n por t i on of t he fi r s tw ar r ant , t he box des i gnat i ng t he dat e and t i m e t he w ar r antw as exec ut ed cont ai ns t he t ypew r i t t en w or d “unexe cut ed. ” The s pace des i gnat ed fori nvent or yt aken pur s uantt o t he w ar r antcont ai ns t he handw r i t t en w or d, “unexe cut ed. ” I ns t ead, t he s econd s ear ch w ar r antw as r etur ned a n d l i s t e d t h e i n v e n t o r y. A t hr ee- counts uper cedi ng i ndi ct m entfi l ed i n t he U ni t ed St at es D i s t r i ct- 5-

C ou rtfor t he D i st ri ct of N ew M exico charged S errrano w i t h co nspir acyt o p ossess w i t h i nt entt o di s t r i but e atl eas t500 gr ams of coc ai ne ( C ountO ne) , pos s es s i on w i t h i nt entt o di s t r i but e atl eas t500 gr ams of coc ai ne ( C ountT w o) , and p o sses sion o f a firearm in f u rt h era n ce o f a d rug tr affick ing crim e (C o u n t T h ree ). S err ano fi l ed a m oti on t o sup press evidence o btai ned as a r esul tof a w arr antl ess e n tryin to h is h o m e . T h e d istric t co u rt h e ld a n o n -e v id e n tiary he a rin g a t w h ich it deni ed t he mot i on. Ser r ano t hen ent er ed a gui l t ypl ea t o C ount s T w o and Thre e of t he i ndi ct m entpur s uantt o a pl ea a gr eementand w as s ent ence d t o 120 m ont hs i m pr i s onm ent . T he pl ea a gr eementr es er ved Ser r ano’ s r i ghtt o appea l t he di s t r i ct cour t ’ s s uppr es s i on deci s i on. T hi s t i m el yappea l fol l ow ed. I I . D i s cus s i on T h e trial c o u rt' s d e n ial o f a n e v id e n tiary he a rin g o n a m o tio n to su p p re ss is re v ie w e d fo r a n a b u s e o f d is c re tio n . Unit ed S t ates v. C ha vez- Marqu ez, 66 F. 3d 259, 261 ( 10t h C i r . 1995) . A n evi dent i ar yhear i ng i s r equi r ed onl yw hen a defe ndantm eet s hi s “bur den of s how i ng t hatt her e ar e di s put ed i s s ues of m at er i al fac t . ” Id . I f s uppr es s i on i s “i m pr operfora r eas on of l aw appea r i ng on t he fa ce o f th e m o tio n ,” a h e a ri n g is n o t r e q u ir e d . Id . I n anyevent , t he r eas onabl enes s of t h e s e a r c h a n d s e i z u r e i s a q u e s t i o n o f l a w wh i c h we r e v i e w de novo. Uni t ed St at es v. R ow l and , 1 4 5 F . 3 d 1 1 9 4 , 1 2 0 0 (10 C ir . 1 9 9 8 ). th “[T] he r i ghtof a man t o r et r eati nt o hi s ow n hom e and ther e be f r ee f r om u n re a so n a b le g o v e rn m e n tal in tru sio n sta n d s a t th e v e ryc o re o f th e F o u rthT h e w arrant statedth e c o c a in e w o u ldb e v iew e do nJanu ary1 2 . It w a s a c tu a lly 2 v iew e do nJanu ary1 3 . A t o ra l argum e nt S e rran o c o n c e d e dth e d ate d isc re p an c yw o u ld n o t inv a lid ate th e w arr ant un d e r th e f a c ts o f th is c a s e . Un i te d

Sta tesv . Sims , 428 F. 3d 945, 955 ( 10th C ir . 2005) (non- prej udi ci aland unintenti onaltechni calvi ol ati ons of the w arrant d o n o t w arrant sup p re ss io n ). A c c o rd in g ly , w e d o n o t d isc u ss it.

- 6- A m endment . ” G r oh v. R am i r ez , 540 U . S. 551, 559 ( 2004) ( i nt er nal ci t at i ons and q u o tatio n s o m itt e d ). A c c o rd in g ly , a w a rra n t b a se d o n p ro b a b le c a u se is g e n e ra lly re q u ire d b e fo re e x e c u tin g se a rc h e s a n d se izu re s in sid e a h o m e a n d , w ith o u t a w ar r ant , s uch ac t i on i s “pr es um pt i vel yunr eas onabl e. ” Id . A ti s s ue her e i s an ant i ci pat or ys ear ch w ar r ant . “A n ant i ci pat or yw ar r anti s a w ar r antbas ed upon an a ffi d a v i ts h o w i n g p r o b a b l e c a u s e t h a ta ts o m e f u tu r e t i m e ( b u tn o tp r e s e n t l y) cer t ai n evi dence of cr i m e w i l l be l ocat ed ata s peci fi ed pl ace . ” Uni t ed Stat es v. G r ubbs , — U . S. — , 126 S. C t . 1494, 1498 ( 2006) ( quot i ng 2 W . L aFave, Sear ch an d S eizu re § 3 . 7 (c), p . 3 9 8 (4th ed . 2 0 0 4 )). A s in this ca se, “[ m ]ost an ti cipa tory w arran ts subject t h eir ex ec u ti o n to so m e c o n d it ion p rec ed en t othe r t h an the m ere pas s age of

t i m e — a s o- cal l ed ‘ t r i gger i ng condi t i on. ’ ” Id . T he affi davi tat t ache d t o t he w ar r antt o s ear ch Ser r ano’ s r es i dence s t at es i n r el evantpar t : “[the] w ar r ant w i l l notbe effec t i ve and maynotbe exe cut ed unt i l aft ert he C S vi ew s t he coc ai ne o n Jan u ary1 2 , 2 0 0 4 at [S erran o ’s reside n ce ]. If the co ca ine is loc ated elsew h ere this w arran t w il l no t be e x ec u ted.” (V o l. I, D o c. 58 , ¶ 1 1 ). 2 S erran o claim s the d istri ct co u rterred in ref u sing to h o ld an ev iden ti ary hear i ng i n s pi t e of i t s l egal concl us i on t hatt he ant i ci pat or ys ear ch w ar r antw as- 7-

vali d an d p roperl yexecu t ed. H e argues an ev i den t i aryheari ng w ou l d est abli sh t he ag ents did not ent er hi s hom e pu rs uan tt o the ant i ci pator yw arr ant because th e yh a d re a so n to b e liev e it w a s n o t v a lid . H e th e n a ss e rts th e a g e n ts’ b e lief is evi dence d byt hei ract s . Speci fi cal l y , he poi nt s t o t he fol l ow i ng fac t s : ( 1) t he aff i davi tfort he s econd w ar r antm ade no ment i on of t he fi r s tw ar r antand s t at es t he age nt s ent er ed mer el yt o s ecur e t he r es i dence ; ( 2) w hen t he age nt s ent er ed, t heydi d noti m m edi at el ys ear ch, butw ai t ed fora s econd w ar r ant ; and ( 3) t he r etur n on t he fi r s tw ar r ants t at es i tw as “unexe cut ed. ” B as ed on t hes e eve nt s , he concl udes t he age nt s bel i eved the ant i ci pat or yw ar r antw as notval i d, l eavi ng t he entryw arr antl ess i n v i olat i on of S err ano ’s F ou rth A m end m ent r i gh t s. W e ea s i l ydi s pos e of Serr ano’ s ar gum entt o t he ext enti ti s bas ed on t he e ffe c t o f th e a g e n ts’ s u bjec tiv e b e lief. T h e S u p re m e C o u rt’s r e c e n t d e c isio n in B righ am C i t

y, Ut ah v. Stuartd ism an tl es a n yco n tention that an o fficer’s s ubj ect i ve bel i ef i s r el evantt o ourFour t h A m endment anal y s i s . — U . S. — , 126 S .C t. 19 4 3 , 1 9 4 8 (2 0 0 6 ) (“ A n a c tio n is ‘re a so n a b le’ u n d e r th e F o u rth A m e n d m e n t, regar dles s of t he indi vidual offi cer' s st at e of m i nd , as l on g as t he cir cum st ances, vi ew ed obj ect i vel

y, ju stif yth e a c tio n . . . . T h e o ffice r' s s u bjec tiv e m o tiv a tio n is i r r el evant . ”) . Ser r ano ca nnott r ans for m hi s ar gum entbyar gui ng t he “obj ect i ve” fa cts su g g est a w arran tl ess e n try . H ere , the u n d en iable fac t i s the o fficers obt ai ned a w ar r antt o ent erSer r ano’ s hom e t o s ear ch forand s ei ze e vi dence of d ru g tra ffick in g . T h e re fo re , the re lev a n t q u e stio n is w h e th e r th e w a rra n t an d its- 8-

exec ut i on comport ed w i t h Four t h A m endment pr ot ect i ons and w het hert hat det er m i nat i on r equi r es an evi dent i ar yhear i ng. Ser r ano cont ends t he age nt s r eas onabl ybel i eved the ant i ci pat or yw ar r ant w a s in v a lid b e c a u se to o m a n ye v e n ts h a d to o c c u r p rio r to th e trig g e rin g e v e n t to s us t ai n pr obabl e ca us e, and t he t r i gger i ng eventi n t hi s cas e w as ei t hernotm et , or in th e a ltern a tiv e , w a s n o t su fficie n tlysp e c ific. A h e a rin g is n o t n e c e ss a ryto det er m i ne t he age nt s pr oper l yent er ed Ser r ano’ s hom e undert he author i t yof a v a lid w a rra n t. A n a n ticip a to ryw a rra n t p re d ica ted o n to o m a n yu n c e rta in f u tu re e v e n ts m ayfai l t o s uffi ci ent l yes t abl i s h pr obabl e ca us e: A n ti cipa toryw arran ts are . . . n o d iffe ren t i n p ri n ciple f rom o rdin ary w arr ants . T hey requi re the m agis t rat e t o d et erm i ne (1) that i ti s now p ro b a b le t hat( 2) cont r aband, evi dence of a c r i m e, ora fugi t i ve w ill be o n the d esc ri b ed p rem ises (3) w h en the w arran t i s ex ec u ted. It s houl d be not ed, how ever , t hatw her e t he ant i ci pat or yw ar r antpl ace s a condi t i on ( ot hert han t he mer e pas s age of t i m e) upon i t s exec ut i on, th e first o f

th e se d e ter m in a tio n s g o e s n o t m e re lyto w h a t w ill pr obabl ybe found if t he condi t i on i s m et . ( I f t hatw er e t he ext entof t he pr obabi l i t ydet er m i nat i on, an ant i ci pat or yw ar r antcoul d be i s s ued foreveryhous e i n t he countr y , aut hor i zi ng s ear ch and s ei zur e if co n tr ab an d sh o u ld b e d eli v ere d -t h o u g h fo r an ysing le l o ca ti o n there i s no l i kel i hood t hatcont r aband w i l l be del i ver ed. ) R at her , t he pr obabi l i t ydet er m i nat i on fora condi t i oned ant i ci pat or yw ar r ant l ooks al s o t o t he l i kel i hood t hatt he condi t i on w i l l occur , and t hus that a p rop er o bject of seizu re w il l be o n the d esc ri b ed p rem ises. In o th e r w o rd s, fo r a c o n d iti o n e d a n ticip a to ryw a rra n t to c o m p lyw ith t h e F o u r t h Am e n d me n t ' s r e q u i r e me n to f p r o b a b l e c a u s e , t wo pr er equi s i t es of pr obabi l i t ym us tbe s at i s fi ed. I tm us tbe t rue not o n lyth a t if

th e trig g e rin g c o n d iti o n o c c u rs ‘ th e re is a fa ir p ro b a b ili ty t hatcont r aband orevi dence of a c r i m e w i l l be found i n a par t i cul ar pl ace , ’ butal s o t hatt her e i s pr obabl e ca us e t o bel i eve the t r i gger i ng- 9-

condi t i on w ill occur . T he s uppor t i ng aff i davi tm us tpr ovi de t he m agi s t r at e w i t h s uffi ci enti nfor m at i on t o eval uat e bot h as pect s of t he pr obabl e- caus e det er m i nat i on. G r ubbs , 126 S. C t . at1500 ( ci t at i ons om i t t ed) . B eca us e C S had t o ar r ange a m e e tin g b e tw e e n S e rra n o a n d M a ta ( th e u n d e rc o v e r a g e n t), n e g o tiatio n s h a d to fin ali ze an d the p arti es h ad to ag ree the c o ca ine w o u ld b e tran sfe rred at S erran o ’s A l buquer que r es i dence , Ser r ano cont ends t her e w as notpr obabl e ca us e t o bel i eve th e trig g e rin g c o n d iti o n w o u ld o c c u r. W e th in k b o th p re re q u isites o f p ro b a b ili ty w e re m e t. T he affi davi ti n s uppor tof t he w ar r ants t at es C S r epor t ed Ser r ano had cont act ed C S t o ar r ange fort he s al e of thr ee ki l ogr ams of coc ai ne and c onfi r m ed t he pr i ce a t$17, 000 eac h, Ser r ano t ol d C S he w ant ed t o do t he t r ans act i on at Ser r ano’ s r es i dence i n A l buquer que, gi vi ng a s peci fi c addr es s , and he ha d “t hr ee car s ” t hatw er e “r eal l ygood. ” The t er m s and t he l ocat i on of an i m m i nentdrug d e a l w e re sta ted in su fficie n t d e tail fo r th e iss u in g m a g istra te to fin d it p ro b a b le t hata l ar ge amount of coc ai ne w oul d s oon be att he des cr i bed l ocat i on. T he t r i gger i ng eventw as C S’ s confi r m at i on t hatt he expe ct ed eve nt s as det ai l ed i n t he aff i davi thad, i n fac t , occurr ed. I tw as i ndeed pr obabl e t hatw i t hi n an i ndefi ni t e, buts hor t , t i m e C S w oul d vi ew t he coc ai ne att he l ocat i on i dent i fi ed i n t he w ar r ant a n d s ig n a l th e a g e n ts w h o w o u ld , u p o n e n tr y , fin d c o n tr a b a n d . Ser r ano al s o cl ai m s t he t r i gger i ng eventw as ei t hert oo vague ori tnever o c c u r r e d b e c a u s e CS d i d n o ta c tu a l l y“ v i e w” t h e c o c a i n e . Ra t h e r , b e c a u s e CS- 10-

s aw onl yt hr ee r ect angul aropaque pa ckage s w hi ch coul d have c ont ai ned any s ubs t ance , t he condi t i on pr ece dentw as notm etand t her efor e t he w ar r antw as “v o id.” T h e “ co n d it ion s p rec ed en t t o the e x ec u ti o n o f a n an ti cipa toryw arran t are i nt egr al t o i t s val i di t y ” bec aus e t hey“ens ur e[] agai ns tpr emat ur e exe cut i on of t he w ar r ant , ” and “ m ai nt ai n[] j udi ci al cont r ol overt he pr obabl e ca us e det er m i nat i on and overt he ci r cumst ance s of t he w ar r ant ' s exec ut i on. ” R ow l and , 145 F. 3d at 1 2 0 2 . T h e sp e c ificityre q u ire d is n o t “p a rticu lar ity ” u n d e r th e F o u rth A m e n d m e n t. G r ubbs , 1 2 6 S .C t. at 1 5 0 1 . T h e F o u rth A m e n d m e n t “s p e c ifies o n ly t w o m at t er s t hatm us tbe ‘ par t i cul ar l ydes cr i b[ed] ’ i n t he w ar r ant : ‘ t he pl ace t o be s ear ched’ and ‘ t he per s ons ort hi ngs t o be s ei zed. ’ ” Id . at1500. O t her w i s e, “t he condi t i ons gover ni ng t he w ar r ant ' s exec ut i on s houl d be expl i ci t , cl ear , and nar r ow l ydr aw n s o as t o avoi d m i s under s t andi ng orm ani pul at i on bygover nm ent agent s . ” R ow l and , 1 4 5 F .3 d a t 1 2 0 2 ; see also Unit ed S t ates v. Hernan dezR odr iguez , 352 F. 3d 1325, 1326 ( 10t h C i r . 2003) ( T he t r i gger i ng eventm us tbe des cr i bed “w i t h s uffi ci ents peci fi ci t yt o ens ur e t hatanyj udgm entcal l r egar di ng p ro b a b le c a u s e is m a d e b ya n e u tr a l m a g is tr a te a n d n o t b yth e e n fo rc in g o ffic e r.” ). T he nec es s ar ypar t i cul ar i t y“w i l l var ybas ed on t he i ndi vi dual fac t s of ea ch ca s e. ” R ow l and , 1 4 5 F .3 d a t 1 2 0 2 . H er e, t he w ar r antr equi r ed C S t o “vi ew ” t he coc ai ne pr i ort o gi vi ng t he s i gnal forent r y . T he ant i ci pat or yw ar r antdi d notl eave ei t hert he def i ni t i on or occurr ence of a tr i gger i ng eventt o “an e xer ci s e of the off i cer ' s unfet t er edSerrano’ s s uppl ementalauthoritydoesnotconvince usotherw i s e. Serrano’ s cites 3 to cas es addres s ing the know l edge of the def endantof the pres enceof a c ontrol l ed sub stan ce are inap p o site. W e are n o t con side rin ga “ b eyo n da re aso n ab le do ub t” stan d ard b ut rathe r, a F o urthA m en dm ent searchb ase do np rob ab le cau se. In a d d ition , S erran o ’s rel i anceon State v. Lee , 624 A . 2d 492 ( M d. 1993) i gnoresthe vas tlydi ffe rent circumstance s in thi s cas e. T here, the M aryl and Supreme C ourtcons i dered an anticip ato ryw arrant exp re ss lyp ro v id in git w a s to tak e e f f e c t “a f terap urc h a se o f

L S D is confirm ed. ” Id . at496. T he pol i ce f ai l ed to confirmthe pres enceof LS D even though th e c o ntrab an dh a db e e np urc h a se d , b ro u g ht to th e m , an daf ieldtes t kit w a s av a ilab le to i denti fythe s ubs tance . I f the requirement s in Leew e re ap p liedto th is c a se , the C S w o u ld notonlyhave ha d to s ee the coc aine pow der , butto conducta fi el d tes tin the pres enceof th e d e f e n d ant. T o re qu ire su c ha c tiv ityw o u ldn o t o n lyb e imp ra c tica l, but qu ite p o ss ib ly un du ly d an g e ro u s a s w e ll.

- 11- dis cret i on aryj ud gm ent . . . . t ransfer [ri ng ] cont rol ov er pr ob able cause det er m i nat i ons fr om t he magi s t r at e t o t he l aw enfor cementoffi cer , and t hus under m i n[i ng] t he purpos e of the w ar r antr equi r ement . ” Her nandez - R odr iguez , 3 5 2 F .3 d a t 1 3 3 1 . A c tu a llyv iew in g th e c o c a in e is a d isc re te e v e n t, no t a j udgm entcal l . T hus “pr act i cal , comm ons ens e” c ons i der at i ons convi nce us t he e x e c u tio n o f

th e w a rr a n t w a s n o t le f t to th e a g e n ts ’ u n fe tte re d d is c re tio n . S e e id . T he i s s ue i s w het herC S actual l yvi ew ed t he bar gai ned- forcoca i ne, as r equi r ed by t he ant i ci pat or yw ar r ant . W hi l e C S m aynothave s een c ocai ne pow der , he s aw th re e re c tan g u lar p a c k a g e s w h ich S e rra n o a n d h is c o -d e fe n d a n t b o th sp e c ifica lly as s ur ed hi m cont ai ned one ki l ogr am of cocai ne ea ch t o be s ol d for$17, 000 per k il o g ram . W e thin k the s igh t of the p ac k ag ed m aterial co m b ined w ith S erran o ’s a s s u ra n c e s a n d th e s u b s ta n tia l p ri c e ta g a re s u ffic ie n t to c o n s titu te a “ v ie w in g .” 3 I n s um , t he age nt s ’ s ubj ect i ve bel i ef r egar di ng t he val i di t yof t he w ar r ant- 12-

w as im m aterial . T h e w arran t w as v ali d an d p rop erlyex ec u ted. T h e d istri ct co u rt di d notabus e i t s di s cr et i on i n r efus i ng a hea r i ng beca us e i tcor r ect l yconcl uded, a s a m a tter o f

law , tha t th e a g e n ts e n ter e d S e rra n o ’s r e sid e n c e p u rsu a n t to a v a lid w a rra n t. T h a t sa id , w e n e e d n o t re a c h th e g o v e rn m e n t’s g o o d fa ith a rg u m e n t. A F F IR M E D . Judg e M cW i l l i am s di ssent s. E n ter ed b y th e C o u rt: T err ence L. O ’ B ri en U ni t ed St at es C i r cui tJ udge