An employee of a storage company informed police that the owner of the company was involved in a conspiracy to steal goods and then sell them. According to the employee, the owner permitted the storage of the stolen goods in his warehouse, typically only overnight, before the goods were transported elsewhere for resale. Acting on reliable information from the employee that the warehouse was due to receive a shipment of stolen goods that evening, a police officer immediately sought and obtained a warrant from a neutral and detached magistrate to search the warehouse upon the arrival of the stolen goods. The warrant failed to specify the condition that had to occur before the search was authorized by the warrant. Properly executing the warrant, the police seized the stolen goods. The warehouse owner was charged with conspiracy to commit larceny and possession of stolen goods. The owner sought to suppress the evidence of the stolen goods on the grounds that the seizure was unconstitutional. Should the court suppress this evidence?
Answers:
A. Yes, because an anticipatory warrant is per se unconstitutional.
B. Yes because the failure to state the triggering condition in the warrant caused the warrant to fail for lack of particularity.
C. No, because the warrant satisfied the probable cause requirement of the Fourth Amendment.
D. No, because a warrant is not needed to search business premises such as a warehouse.