Court Opinion

ID: 9568977
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 20:09:11.849259+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:17:33.198114
License: Public Domain

Wahls, J.
(concurring in part and dissenting in part). I concur in the majority’s resolution of the issue regarding whether the original opening of the express mail package without a search warrant was a violation of defendant’s Fourth Amend*243ment rights. As pointed out by the majority, the issue was not preserved by virtue of defendant’s plea. I also concur with regard to the sentencing issue.
However, I respectfully dissent from the majority’s position that there was probable cause at the time the warrant was issued to search defendant’s residence. Both the United States and Michigan Constitutions guarantee a person’s right against unreasonable searches and seizures of the person, houses, papers, and effects. US Const, Am IV; Const 1963, art 1, § 11. Probable cause to search must exist at the time the search warrant is issued. Probable cause exists when a person of reasonable caution would be justified in concluding that evidence of criminal conduct is in the stated place to be searched. Illinois v Gates, 462 US 213; 103 S Ct 2317; 76 L Ed 2d 527 (1983); People v Russo, 439 Mich 584, 606-607; 487 NW2d 698 (1992).
I disagree with the majority’s conclusion that there was probable cause to believe that contraband or other evidence of drug trafficking would be found at defendant’s residence at the time the warrant was issued. The affidavit provided the following facts. A man purporting to be defendant telephoned the post office in Highland, Michigan, inquiring about a package that he was expecting. Defendant provided the express mail label number. At this point, there was no connection between the express mail label and the package at the Detroit Express Mail manager’s office. Defendant, left a telephone number where he could be reached. A day or so later, a post office employee telephoned the number and "told an individual there, that he had located the express label, but not the parcel.” In response to the employee’s question, the "individual” stated that the parcel *244contained two boxes of computer floppy disks. Given the totality of these actions, I would not find reasonable grounds to conclude that defendant actually was engaged in illegal drug trafficking and that a search of his home probably would uncover evidence of such conduct. Rather, I believe that probable cause to search defendant’s residence was conditional upon his acceptance of the package at his residence. Thus, I believe the warrant should be analyzed as an anticipatory warrant.
An anticipatory search warrant is a warrant based upon an affidavit showing probable cause that at some future time (but not presently) certain evidence of crime will be located at a specified place. 2 LaFave, Search and Seizure (2d ed), § 3.7(c), p 94. Like traditional search warrants in which there exists the expectation that the contraband will remain at the designated location until the warrant is executed, anticipatory warrants are premised on the expectation that the contraband sought will be at the designated location when the search commences. United States v Ricciardelli, 998 F2d 8, 10-11 (CA 1, 1993); United States v Garcia, 882 F2d 699, 702 (CA 2, 1989). It is believed that the objectives of the Fourth Amendment are served better by allowing government agents to obtain warrants in advance of a controlled delivery rather than by forcing the agents to proceed without a warrant under the constraints of exigent circumstances and subject to suppression at a subsequent date. Ricciardelli, supra at 10. An anticipatory warrant also alleviates the risk that the drugs will be removed or destroyed before execution of the warrant if the agents were to obtain a warrant only after the controlled delivery had been made.
Thus, several federal and state jurisdictions *245have concluded that anticipatory search warrants are not unconstitutional per se. Ricciardelli, supra at 11; Garcia, supra at 702-703, and cases cited therein. See also People v Sousa, 18 Cal App 4th 549; 22 Cal Rptr 2d 264 (1993); State v Ulrich, 265 NJ Super 569; 628 A2d 368 (1993); State v Engel, 465 NW2d 787 (SD, 1991); Commonwealth v Reviera, 387 Pa Super 196; 563 A2d 1252 (1989); State v Wright, 115 Idaho App 1043; 772 P2d 250 (1989); State v Coker, 746 SW2d 167 (Tenn, 1987); Johnson v State, 617 P2d 1117 (Alas, 1980); People v Glen, 30 NY2d 252; 331 NYS2d 656; 282 NE2d 614 (1972). See also State v Lee, 93 Md App 408; 613 A2d 395 (1992) (declining to address whether the state of Maryland will approve the use of anticipatory search warrants). Most of these decisions recognize that anticipatory warrants present greater potential for abuse than routine warrants based on past events. These risks include the risk of premature issuance, the risk of judicial abdication of the probable cause determination, and the risk of premature execution. Wright, supra at 1049; Lee, supra at 416.
To protect against the first two abuses, the courts have required a particularized showing that the items to be seized will be in the place to be searched at a specified time. Requiring such a showing before the warrant is issued ensures that the magistrate (not the officers in the field) will determine when, and whether, there should be a search. Often, the requisite probable cause is established by showing that the contraband is "on a sure and irreversible course to its destination.” Ricciardelli, supra at 12; Garcia, supra. The supporting affidavit should illustrate that the agent believes the delivery is going to occur, how the agent has obtained this belief, the reliability of the source of that information, and what part govern*246ment agents will play in the delivery. Garcia, supra at 703. In this case, the affidavit of the postal inspector, Gregg Fiorina, provided, in relevant part:
Affiant further states that Affiant has made arrangements to have the package delivered to the above described residence pursuant to its mailing instructions on August 29, 1991.
No specifics were provided concerning how the controlled delivery was to occur or what role the government agents would play in the controlled delivery. By failing to provide such detail, the affidavit did not establish that the contraband in the express mail package was on a sure and irreversible course to defendant’s residence. Therefore, I would hold that the warrant was invalid.
The third risk inherent in anticipatory warrants is that overzealous government agents will carry out the search and seizure in advance of the controlled delivery. Therefore, several decisions also have held that the search warrant must express clearly the precise circumstances under which the warrant may be executed. One particular condition should be that execution is contingent upon arrival of the contraband. Garcia, supra; Ricciardelli, supra. See also Johnson, supra.1 Conditioning the warrant upon delivery establishes a nexus between the criminal act, the evidence to be seized, and the place to be searched. Ricciardelli, supra at 13. In this case, the warrant did not *247detail the precise circumstances under which it was to be executed. In fact, the only condition was that the warrant was to be executed on or before August 20, 1991. Because the warrant in this case failed to authorize a search only after the controlled delivery had occurred, the warrant was invalid.
Of course, the majority’s holding has rendered it unnecessary to analyze whether this jurisdiction should adopt and uphold the constitutional validity of anticipatory search warrants and whether this particular warrant was a valid anticipatory warrant. As previously stated, my disagreement with the majority is that probable cause to search defendant’s residence for evidence of drug trafficking had not been established at the time the warrant was issued. Therefore, I believe that the warrant was an anticipatory warrant, and should be analyzed as such. Additionally, I would recognize the validity of anticipatory warrants subject to the safeguards adopted by other jurisdictions. Because the affidavit did not establish that the contraband was on a sure and irreversible course to defendant’s residence, and because the warrant did not detail the circumstances under which the execution could occur, I also would find that the anticipatory warrant was invalid. Accordingly, I would reverse the lower court’s ruling and remand for entry of an order suppressing the evidence.

 Other decisions have held that the failure to condition the search upon the occurrence of the controlled delivery is not necessarily fatal. United States v Tagbering, 985 F2d 946, 950 (CA 8, 1993), and State v Engel, 465 NW2d 787, 790 (SD, 1991). In Tagbering, the critical factor to the court’s holding was the representation in the affidavit that the warrant would not be executed until the package had been delivered. In Engel, the issuing judge orally admonished the officer not to execute the warrant until the controlled delivery occurred.