Controlled Deliveries: **ANTICIPATORY WARRANT** State of Kansas v. Mullen http://www.kscourts.org/Cases-and-Opinions/opinions/SupCt/2016/20160422/110468.pdf

State of Kansas v. Mullen

http://www.kscourts.org/Cases-and-Opinions/opinions/SupCt/2016/20160422/110468.pdf

An anticipatory warrant is a search 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. Most anticipatory warrants subject their execution to some condition(IE: prior knowledge/possession established) a precedent other than the mere passage of time....often referred to as a ''triggering condition.''


Comments


[9 Points] tatsfortabs:

guys we need to set belize on fire asap


[6 Points] NZT-1:

"5. The Affiant knows that U.S. Postal Service Inspector Justin Lewis will attempt to deliver the package to a resident of (address redacted) Johnson County, Kansas. Based on the successful controlled delivery to a resident, the Affiant is requesting permission to execute this warrant at (address redacted) County, Kansas. Should the delivery not be made, this warrant will not be executed."

Also interesting to see the timeline that plays out. Looks like he had a full 11 mins to evaluate the situation.

"At approximately 1 p.m., Inspector Lewis, dressed as a mail carrier and driving a postal vehicle, arrived at the residence with the package. Lewis knocked on the front door and announced, "Post Office," but no one answered. After waiting about a minute, Lewis set the package down by the front door (the package's sender did not require a signature for delivery) and left in the postal vehicle. At 1:06 p.m., an individual, later identified as M***n, came out of the house through the front door, retrieved the package, and went back inside. At 1:17 p.m., law enforcement entered the home"


[3 Points] None:

[deleted]


[2 Points] None:

It's ok just dont open the pack and hide it under your bed.


[2 Points] lordredvampire:

How did the package got intercepted? Bad opsec:

1) Unreadable address which raise suspicion.

2) Excessive weight because of suspicion raised due to #1.

3) K9 due to #1.

4) He spilled the beans and talked to LE: "Mullen admitted to knowing that the package contained marijuana." He should have kept his mouth shut and invoked his right to remain silent and apprised a lawyer.

"Should the delivery not be made, this warrant will not be executed." (Emphasis added).

1) He should have observed his surroundings first. If he noticed something out of ordinary, he should have left his package at the door or throw it in the garbage.

2) If he took the package, he should have immediately wrote down "return to sender" with a permanent marker. And if time permits, take a picture of it. He had 11 minutes, so it should be a plenty of time.

"Mullen was ultimately charged with possession of marijuana with the intent to distribute. Mullen filed a motion to suppress the marijuana as well as his statements to the police, arguing that the triggering event within the anticipatory search warrant (i.e., "the successful controlled delivery to a resident" of the home) required Lewis to hand deliver the package to a resident of the home. Mullen contended that because Lewis simply left the package on the front porch, a controlled delivery never occurred and, consequently, law enforcement acted in violation of the search warrant when they entered the home after Mullen retrieved the package"

Mullen was absolutely correct: LE are required to hand in the package alongside with the signature to affirm that the person had the knowledge of the contents inside the package. Alias, plausible deniability was already thrown out of the window the moment he spilled the beans and snitched on his friends (no one is gonna go to jail for you).

Discuss.

EDIT: I guess anticipatory warrant (so full of bullshit if you ask me) completely negates plausible deniability; but I guess this only applies to Kansas? Fucking Jewish rednecks.

Even if unopened and labeled "return to sender"?

Yeah, unfortunately. All plausible deniability is, against an anticipatory warrant, is a shield. The acceptance of the package causes the plausible deniability defense to be pierced by the anticipatory warrant.

Again, I assume this only applies to Kansas?


[1 Points] georgieee817:

So he just looked at the package and because he couldn't read the name and the pack was from Cali they brought a k9 for it?


[1 Points] uEbrjuZxTDEwVhqS:

I read the brief, and skimmed the analysis.

Notwithstanding the legal issues, there were multiple OPSEC fails in this:

Handwritten label with illegible name, on a package from California, all made postal inspector suspicious.

Recipient (Mullen) of package was not listed as occupant of address with post office.

K9 alerted on the pack at the post office (no barriers, improper handling of pack)

2 pounds of mj in pack

Guy took possession of pack after knock/CD attempt in spite no sig required (mentioned upthread)

Guy talked before lawyering up

In addition to all the above, brief states that dog (Franz) is trained to smell mj, coke, heroin and meth. I didn't know dogs could smell meth. I think I've seen that question before without conclusive answer.

Also, it mentions California as a suspicious state many times in the brief. There have been arguments here in the past as to whether ordering from "legal states" constitutes any OPSEC concerns.

tl;dr of the tl;dr - This all could have been avoided with proper OPSEC practices.


[1 Points] None:

And yet more stupid babbling bullshit on the war on drugs. Is it really worth all this? Really? Just because some asshats are mad that their job constitutes they can't use drugs recreationally? I met their kids' birthday parties are just epic. I always wanted a piƱata...../s


[-2 Points] Trappy_Pandora:

This is informative please tell me more