With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 703; United States v. Leidner, 99 F.3d 1423, 1426 (7th Cir.1996); see also 2 Wayne R. LaFave, Search & Seizure: A Treatise on the Fourth Amendment § 3.7(c), at 366-67 (3d ed.1996) (stating that to establish probable cause for anticipatory warrant, affidavit must “indicate how it is known that the items to be seized will on a later occasion be at the place specified” and stating that more details will be necessary in non-controlled delivery eases). Similarly, when a controlled delivery is not made to the place to be searched, such as when a defendant is required to pick up a package containing contraband at a post office, the warrant application must present additional facts establishing the contraband will be taken to the place designated for search. Cf. Hendricks, 743 F.2d at 654-55 (<HOLDING>). II. VALIDITY OF ANTICIPATORY WARRANT TO

A: holding anticipatory warrant for search of defendants home was invalid when defendant was required to pick up suitcase containing contraband at airport and there was no assurance at time warrant was issued that defendant would take suitcase to his home
B: holding anticipatory warrant for search of defendants home was invalid because facts made known to magistrate did not establish at time warrant was issued the required nexus between the contraband to be seized which was mailed to defendants post office box and defendants home
C: holding anticipatory warrant was invalid for lack of probable cause because at time warrant was issued the contraband was not on a sure course to the place to be searched and there was no assurance defendant would take contraband to that place
D: holding anticipatory warrant for search of defendants home was invalid because affidavit provided no assurance that defendant would take package to his home after collecting it at the airport despite fact that warrant contained condition that it was not to be executed until package arrived at defendants house
A.