Najam, J.
The State charged Gregory Lagrone with one count of dealing in marijuana and one count of possession of marijuana, as Class D felonies. Lagrone filed a motion to suppress evidence seized pursuant to a search warrant that was obtained and executed after police had entered Lagrone’s residence and secured the premises. Following a hearing, the trial court granted the motion to suppress, effectively preventing prosecution of Lagrone. In the State’s appeal, we consider the following issues sua sponte:
1. Whether the insertion of a global positioning device (“GPS”) inside an already opened package of marijuana obtained from United Parcel Service (“UPS”) or the tracking of the package’s location via that device constituted a search under the Fourth Amendment.
2. Whether the insertion of a “parcel wire” in the marijuana package or the monitoring of that device by police once Lagrone had carried the package into his home constituted a search under the Fourth Amendment.
We also consider the following issue:
3. Whether the State’s warrantless entry into Lagrone’s home was justified under the exigent circumstances exception to the warrant requirement.
We affirm.
Although we have found no single precedent involving a previously opened container, the use of these electronic devices, and transmission from the defendant’s home, three United States Supreme Court’s opinions when considered together provide an analytical framework. In Illinois v. Andreas, 463 U.S. 765, 771 (1983), the Court held that the privacy interest in a container is lost when it is lawfully opened and that that interest is not revived when the container is closed or sealed again. In United States v. Karo, 468 U.S. 705, 715 (1984), the Court held that the warrantless monitoring of a tracking beeper in a container located inside a home violates the Fourth Amendment rights of those with a reasonable privacy interest in the home. Finally, in Kentucky v. King, 131 S. Ct. 1849, 1858 (2011), the Court held that a warrantless entry into a home by police to prevent the destruction of evidence is reasonable and, thus, allowed under the Fourth Amendment only where the police did not create the exigency by engaging or threatening to engage in conduct that violates the Fourth Amendment. Synthesizing these three cases, together with other relevant authority, we conclude that the warrantless use of the parcel wire to monitor the package within Lagrone’s house violated the Fourth Amendment. Due to that violation, under King the State cannot justify its warrantless intrusion into Lagrone’s home under the exigent circumstances exception to the Fourth Amendment.
KIRSCH, J., and MAY, J., concur.