United States v. William Perkins
887 F.3d 272 (2018)
Rule of Law:
Anticipatory search warrants require strict adherence to the explicit, clear, and narrowly drawn triggering conditions specified by the magistrate; courts will interpret these conditions using a common-sense reading and will not permit law enforcement to substitute their own post-hoc probable cause determinations for the magistrate's approved conditions.
Facts:
- Law enforcement intercepted a package containing methamphetamine addressed to "B. PERKINS" at 5831 Rowe Gap RD, Belvidere, TN.
- Investigation revealed that William Perkins resided at the address and was known by a confidential informant and local law enforcement as a methamphetamine dealer.
- DEA officer Daniel Warren sought an anticipatory warrant to search Perkins's residence, proposing a controlled delivery plan.
- The warrant's proposed triggering event explicitly required DEA officer Kyle Brewer, posing as a FedEx driver, to "hand deliver the above mentioned package to PERKINS."
- A judge issued the anticipatory warrant incorporating this specific triggering event.
- Officer Brewer, having been misbriefed about the warrant's specific terms, did not read the warrant and believed he only needed to deliver the package to someone at the residence.
- Officer Brewer delivered the package to a woman at the residence, who identified herself as expecting a package, without confirming her identity or whether Perkins was present.
- Perkins was not present at the residence at the time of delivery and did not arrive until approximately an hour later.
Procedural Posture:
- The United States charged William Perkins with possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine.
- Perkins filed a motion to suppress the evidence obtained from the search of his residence in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee.
- A magistrate judge in the district court recommended denying Perkins's motion to suppress.
- The district court disagreed with the magistrate judge's recommendation and granted Perkins's motion to suppress.
- The United States of America, as the plaintiff-appellant, appealed the district court's suppression ruling to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an anticipatory search warrant remain valid when the triggering event, which explicitly required hand-delivery of a package "to Perkins," was not strictly fulfilled because the package was delivered to another person at Perkins's residence, even if the actual delivery might have independently established probable cause?
Opinions:
Majority - Thapar
No, an anticipatory search warrant does not remain valid when its explicit triggering event, requiring hand-delivery of a package "to Perkins," was not strictly fulfilled because the package was delivered to another person at the residence. The court reasoned that requiring delivery "to Perkins" was the only common sense reading of the warrant's triggering event and was not a hypertechnicality. It rejected the government's argument that the language should be broadly interpreted to mean delivery "to anybody inside the residence with apparent authority to accept delivery," stating that courts cannot replace the explicit words written in a warrant. The court underscored that the Fourth Amendment requires a neutral magistrate, not law enforcement, to make probable cause determinations, and allowing a search to proceed when the specific triggering condition was not met would undermine this principle. The court distinguished previous cases like United States v. Miggins, which involved a more general triggering event ('taken by someone inside'), and United States v. Penney, where the target (Penney) played the envisioned 'operative role' in the transaction, unlike Perkins in this case. Therefore, the court concluded that law enforcement must abide by the specific, explicit triggering conditions approved by the magistrate.
Analysis:
This case significantly reinforces the imperative for law enforcement to meticulously adhere to the specific conditions outlined in anticipatory search warrants, especially when those conditions name a particular individual or action. It clarifies that the 'common sense' reading of a warrant does not permit a post-hoc reinterpretation of clear terms or a substitution of the magistrate's probable cause determination with an officer's assessment of equivalent probable cause. This ruling limits law enforcement's discretion in executing such warrants and is crucial for upholding Fourth Amendment protections, ensuring that judges, rather than officers, serve as the primary gatekeepers for searches. Future cases will likely apply strict scrutiny to whether the precise triggering event has occurred, potentially leading to suppression of evidence if any deviation from the warrant's explicit terms is found.
