U.S. v. Calligan

In prosecution on drug and firearm charges, Dist. Ct. did not err in denying defendant’s motion to suppress evidence seized from his girlfriend’s house, even though defendant argued that police conducted search outside of scope of warrant, where police stated in warrant application that, prior to search, it would deliver actual drugs found in intercepted mailed package addressed to defendant, and where police substituted flour and sugar when package was delivered to defendant. While defendant argued that police had sought anticipatory warrant where triggering condition for probable cause was delivery of actual drugs, Dist. Ct. could properly find that warrant was not anticipatory, and that delivery of actual drugs was not triggering condition. Moreover, magistrate judge could properly find that there was probable cause without delivery of actual drugs, where: (1) at time of issuance of warrant, police were aware that shipper had sent package to defendant containing distribution amount of controlled substance; (2) defendant’s car had been parked outside of girlfriend’s house and defendant had received other international deliveries there; and (3) officer asserted in warrant application that, in his experience, drug traffickers often kept drugs and guns where they lived. Also, any misrepresentation regarding delivery of actual drugs would not have altered magistrate judge’s probable cause finding.