Whether the Ninth Circuit majority opinion has adopted a rule of exigent circumstances contrary to United States v. Grubbs and Kentucky v. King

QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW WHETHER THE NINTH CIRCUIT MAJORITY OPINION AS A MATTER OF SOUND PUBLIC POLICY HAS (1) ADOPTED A RULE OF EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES TO ENTER A HOME WHERE: 1. A CONTROLLED DELIVERY OF A PACKAGE WAS MADE TO A SUSPECT’S APARTMENT BUILDING AFTER ALL BUT ONE OUNCE OF THE ILLEGAL DRUGS HAD BEEN REMOVED FROM THE PACKAGE, 2. NO ATTEMPT WAS MADE TO OBTAIN AN ANTICIPATORY SEARCH WARRANT, 3. THE SUSPECT PICKED UP THE PACKAGE ADDRESSED TO HIS APARTMENT FROM THE APARTMENT MANAGER AND TOOK IT TO HIS APARTMENT, 4. THREE HOURS PASSED BEFORE THE CONCEALED BEEPER ALLEGEDLY WENT OFF DURING WHICH THE AGENTS MADE NO EFFORT TO OBTAIN AN ORDINARY SEARCH WARRANT, 5. ONLY ONE OF THREE AGENTS AT THE FRONT DOOR CLAIMED TO HEAR THE RUSTLING OF PAPER OR PLASTIC FROM INSIDE THE UNIT AFTER THE BEEPER ALLEGEDLY WENT OFF AND BROKE OPEN THE FRONT DOOR, AND li QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW —Continued 6. UPON ENTRY TO THE APARTMENT, THE PACKAGE WAS FOUND UNOPENED AND THE SUSPECT WAS STANDING IN THE KITCHEN, THERE BEING NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER OF PAPER OR PLASTIC THAT COULD HAVE BEEN RUSTLED, CONTRARY TO UNITED STATES v. GRUBBS AND KENTUCKY v. KING, AND (2) HAS CREATED A RULE THAT PROMOTES LAW ENFORCEMENT PERJURY CONTRARY TO THE PRINCIPLES OF KENTUCHY v. KING?