Even if he had been, the warrant would have just been for BK, not all the people who delivered there and all the details about that including communication. To get that warrant, there had to be probable cause.
editing to add
Idaho Criminal Rule 41. Search and Seizure
isc.idaho.gov
replying to my own post to add:
Reasonable suspicion isn't enough; hunches and curiosity don't get a warrant. Esp a broad one with an 11-month scope. And the warrant was sealed for the reasons stated in the motion, and one of the reasons for it to remain sealed was that it would
- Disclose the identity of a confidential source
And this is a court record with the judge's name on it ordering what would otherwise be a public record to be sealed. They don't just make stuff up.
I keep trying to find a reason that both makes sense and follow the constitution. It can't be just because DD delivered there because so did USPS and probably UPS and more. Search and seizure laws aren't trampled that way. That's not even reasonable suspicion, much less probable cause; that is just spitballing.
It can't be just because DD may have seen BKs car - because then just interview the DD drivers. LE doesn't need a warrant for an interview. It's got to be more.
The 'LE is just being sure' theory doesn't work because again, that's not enough for a warrant - and the defense would have a party with that, basically:
so you were so sure it was my client, you did a broad sweep of 11-months and got a warrant for 20 people's Tinder accounts. Not a good look.
Of course, SODDI defense is something LE wants to avoid, but that's why investigation and interviews continue. Warrants don't happen that way unless there is probable cause to believe that SODDI and then that's a whole other problem.
Warrants happen because there is probable cause that the place to be searched and the person/things to be seized are in that place and relate to the crime. So how would DD fit into that scenario? I wish I'd never seen all those new docs. I was at peace.