Jones

MEMORANDUM *

Chance Alexander Jones appeals his conviction and sentence of thirty-three months’ imprisonment for attempting to manufacture MDMA in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 . Because the district court properly denied Jones’s motion to suppress, we affirm.

We reject Jones’s claim that the anticipatory search warrant was not triggered because the electronic tracking device activated after Jones took the package to the dumpster rather than while the package was inside his apartment. Search “warrantfs] must be interpreted in a ‘common sense and realistic fashion,’ ” United States v. Vesikuru, 314 F.3d 1116, 1123 (9th Cir.2002), “rather than [in] a hyper-technical” manner, United States v. Turner, 770 F.2d 1508, 1510 (9th Cir.1985). As stated in the affidavit accompanying the warrant, the triggering event for the warrant was the opening of the package while it was inside Jones’s apartment. The receipt of a signal from the tracking device served only as an indicator that the triggering event had occurred; it was not itself the triggering event. Based on observing that Jones accepted the package and took it into his apartment, that Jones did not leave the apartment building after…

I concur in the result.