Do NOT use ChatGPT for your legal research! Police search a home after intercepting a mail package.

Upon this evidence, and knowing that the box was at the airport in the possession of DEA agents, the magistrate issued a warrant for a search of Hendrick"s residence at N. Sidney. Although the warrant states that "on the premises known as 2835 N. Sidney . . . there is now being concealed . . . a . . . cardboard box [containing cocaine]," (emphasis added) it further states "this search warrant is to be executed only upon the condition that the above described box is brought to the aforesaid premises" (emphasis added). In making the determination as to probable cause, our role is limited to "ensuring that the magistrate had a `substantial basis for . . . conclud[ing]" that probable cause existed." Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 103 S.Ct. 2317, 2332, 76 L.Ed.2d 527 (1983) (quoting Jones v. United States, 362 U.S. 257, 271, 80 S.Ct. 725, 736, 4 L.Ed.2d 697 (1960)). The Supreme Court has stressed that "courts must continue to conscientiously review the sufficiency of affidavits in which warrants are issued," Gates, 103 S.Ct. at 2332, see Leon, 104 S.Ct. 3422-23. The condition inserted into the warrant by the magistrate, that the warrant was not to be executed until the suitcase arrived at the house, is the principal source of our concern in this case. If the suitcase had been in the house, or if probable cause existed to believe it was there, issuance of the warrant would have been proper. However, at the time the warrant was issued, the magistrate knew the suitcase was in the possession of the agents, not at the house. The agents, by calling Hendricks to come for the suitcase tried to ensure that the condition subsequent inserted into the warrant would happen. However, at the time the warrant issued and, in fact, until the suitcase was actually brought to the house, there was no certainty that it would ever be brought there. Read the full case here: United States v. Hendricks, 743 F.2d 653, 654 (9th Cir. 1984), https://casetext.com/case/united-states-v-hendricks-2 Anton Vialtsin, Esq. LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM | Criminal Defense and Business Law https://lawstache.com (619) 357-6677 Do you want to buy our Lawstache merchandise? Maybe a t-shirt? https://lawstache.com/merch/ Want to mail me something (usually mustache related)? Send it to 185 West F Street, Suite 100-D, San Diego, CA 92101 Want to learn about our recent victories? https://lawstache.com/results-notable-cases/ If you"d like to support this channel, please consider purchasing some of the following products. We get a little kickback, and it does NOT cost you anything extra: *Calvin Klein Men"s Dress Shirt Slim Fit Non-iron, https://amzn.to/3zm6mkf *Calvin Klein Men"s Slim Fit Dress Pant, https://amzn.to/3G8jLQG *Johnson and Murphy Shoes, https://amzn.to/3KmfX0Y *Harley-Davidson Men"s Eagle Piston Long Sleeve Crew Shirt, https://amzn.to/43gFtMC *Amazon Basics Tank Style Highlighters, https://amzn.to/3zwOEKZ *Pilot Varsity Disposable Fountain Pens, https://amzn.to/40EjSfm *Apple 2023 Mac Mini Desktop Computer, https://amzn.to/3Km2aGC *ClearSpace Plastic Storage Bins, https://amzn.to/3Kzle5q Are you are a Russian speaker? Вы говорите по-русски? https://russiansandiegoattorney.com Based in San Diego, CA Licensed: California, Nevada, and Federal Courts The San Diego-based business litigation and criminal defense attorneys at LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM are e...