PARCEL AND MAIL SEARCHES

PARCEL AND MAIL SNIFFS:

Summary:

The multitude of today’s delivery services such as UPS, Fed-Ex, U.S. Postal Service, Greyhound, airlines, and countless others, all afford the opportunity for a canine sniff.

Random sniffing of parcel and mail, without detaining the item, is not a search.

The courts are divided on the issue of an officer removing a package from the mail / parcel stream or conveyor belt, and taking it to another part of a processing facility for a canine sniff. Some courts state that no reasonable suspicion is required; however some courts state that the officer must have reasonable suspicion, as they believe the package has been “detained.”

Authorities may seize and detain parcel and mail for a canine sniff, only if reasonable suspicion exists.

Upon a positive canine alert, you may seize the package based upon probable cause (the alert) and exigent circumstances (loss of evidence).

Obtain a search warrant based upon the probable cause of the positive canine alert.

Minimize the time the parcel and mail are delayed.

The courts are divided on the issue of pushing on sides of an object to expel air from inside in an effort to smell contents.
The latest ruling states that this action is a search.

A) United States v Race (529 F. 2d 12 (1976) First Circuit

Arrest of defendant after he picked up air cargo containing marijuana was conducted based upon probable cause, where it occurred after agent’s specially trained dog reacted in such a way as to indicate that it smelled marijuana in cargo claimed by the defendant.

B) United States v Jacobsen (466 U.S. 109 (1984) U. S. Supreme Court

A container, which can support a reasonable expectation of privacy, may not be searched, even on probable cause, without a warrant.

Whether the initial invasions of a package by employees of a private freight carrier are accidental or deliberate, and whether they are reasonable or unreasonable, these initial invasions do not violate the Fourth Amendment.

C) United States v LaFrance (879 F. 2d 1 (1989) First Circuit

Reasonable suspicion that contraband was contained in package in possession of overnight delivery service justified seizure of package to conduct dog sniff test.

Investigative detention of package for approximately 135 minutes after noon deadline for delivery by overnight delivery service was reasonable. Police officers acted with reasonable diligence in obtaining dog for sniff test, even though they possibly did not act in most expeditious manner, some police officers were summoned from days off and the sniff test itself consumed approximately one hour.

D) United States v Longbehn (898 F. 2d 635 (1990) Eighth Circuit

Positive results of narcotics canine sniff test provided probable cause to search U.S. Express Mail package. (Officers applied for and were issued a search warrant.)

Ninety minute delay during time U.S. Express Mail package was voluntarily relinquished to postal authorities and time agents were able to obtain dog to perform sniff test was reasonable.

E) United States v Aldaz (921 F. 2d 227 (1990) Ninth Circuit

Postal authorities may seize and detain packages if they have reasonable suspicion.

Postal authorities’ detention of the package, including five hours between a canine drug sniff and the execution of a warrant, was reasonable.

F) United States v Lyons (957 F. 2d 615 (1992) Eighth Circuit

A warrantless search did not occur when narcotics detection dog tore open package addressed to defendant. This occurred during a sniff test on the package as it was delivered to the airline for shipment.

G) United States v England (971 F. 2d 419 (1992) Ninth Circuit

Detention of mailed packages (United States Postal Service) for dog-sniff test for narcotics was not a seizure within meaning of Fourth Amendment, even though packages were removed from assigned holding areas in preparation for inspection.

H) United States v Daniel (982 F. 2d 146 (1993) Fifth Circuit

An American Airlines employee notified officers about a suspicious package shipped on the airline. DEA Agent had reasonable suspicion that the package contained drugs, thus his detention of the package for one hour while awaiting a canine sniff was valid.

There is no reasonable expectation of privacy to the airspace around an item; therefore a canine sniff is not a search.

Nothing is required to have a canine sniff luggage in custody of common carrier.

I) United States v Jacobs (986 F. 2d 1231 (1993) Eighth Circuit

Search warrant affidavit omission, stating that drug sniffing dog had shown interest in Fed-Ex package without disclosing that no “alert” had occurred, rendered warrant invalid.

J) United States V Allen (990 F. 2d 667 (1993) First Circuit

Dog sniff test of U.S. Express Mail package containing LSD generated probable cause for issuance of warrant to search package for contraband, despite fact that dog was not trained to find LSD and trained dog alerted to package.

Reasonable suspicion supported further delay of package for dog sniff test when inspector learned that sender’s address was fictitious.

Dog sniff test was completed within five hours after postmaster notified inspector, despite fact that dog was located at a distance from the post office.

K) United States v Banks (3 F. 3d 399 (1993) Eleventh Circuit

Alert of drug-trained canine to package is sufficient probable cause to obtain search warrant.

Reasonable suspicion existed to delay U.S. Express Mail package until drug detection canine could provide probable cause for search warrant. Information from reliable C.I. was verified by post office, package was delayed temporarily (same day) until trained canine could sniff package and warrant could be obtained and package search and re-notification of addressee occurred on same day.

L) United States v Dennis (115 F. 3d 524 (1997) Seventh Circuit

Postal inspector had reasonable suspicion justifying limited detention of U.S. Express Mail package, based upon:

• It was heavily taped;
• It was sent from private person to private person;
• It had been mailed from source city;
• It had been mailed from zip code different from one listed in return address.

Postal inspector did not detain package for unreasonably long period of time before obtaining a search warrant, detention was less than 48 hours and lasted only as long as necessary to subject package to canine sniff.

M) United States v Vasquez (213 F. 3d 425 (2000) Eighth Circuit

Officer’s actions in examining the outside of a package and then subjecting it to a canine sniff as the package sat inside a Fed-Ex delivery truck, did not constitute a “detention” requiring reasonable suspicion. At that point, officers had not delayed or otherwise interfered with the normal processing of the package.

N) United States v Souza (223 F. 3d 1197 (2000) Tenth Circuit

Fact that box was alerted to by a certified narcotics dog is itself sufficient to create probable cause for search of box.

O) United States v Limares (269 F. 3d 794 (2001) Seventh Circuit

Affidavit of officer which stated that trained drug detection dog, which had proven reliable in past, had alerted to presence of drugs in a parcel, established probable cause for issuance of search warrant.

The record of this dog indicated that 62% of dog’s alerts were followed by the discovery of drugs, and that another 31% signaled the presence of currency, many of which likely resulted from currency with unusually high concentrations of drug revenue.

An affidavit for a search warrant based upon a positive canine alert, need not describe training methods or give dog’s scores on final exams. It is enough if a dog is reliable in the field.

P) United States v Demoss (279 F. 3d 632 (2002) Eighth Circuit

Express mail package was not seized by officer, for Fourth Amendment purposes, when officer lifted and removed package from conveyor belt.

Officers removed several suspicious packages from Fed-Ex’s conveyor belt. Officers took the packages into another room at Fed-Ex. A drug dog alerted to one box and the other boxes were returned to the belt. A search warrant was obtained for the one box based upon the positive canine alert.

This detention did not violate the defendant’s Fourth Amendment rights. The detention of the package was brief, lasting only 20 minutes and there was little risk that the package would not have made it to the appropriate delivery truck if the dog had not alerted to it.

Q) United States v Gill (280 F. 3d 923 (2002) Ninth Circuit

An officer developed reasonable suspicion to submit a package at a U.S. post office to a narcotics canine sniff. The dog did not alert. However, this drug dog was not trained to detect methamphetamine and PCP, due to the risk these substances pose to dogs. Accordingly, the officers continued their investigation, developed probable cause, absent the canine alert, applied for and were granted a search warrant. The package contained 25 ounces of PCP.

R) United States v Gomez (312 F. 3d 920 (2002) Eighth Circuit

Moving a package twenty yards away from the conveyor belt for some moments, was minimal interference with the defendant’s possessory interest in the package. When the package was taken away from the normal activity near the conveyor belt, but still within the confines of the processing center, the package was merely “stopped” and reasonable suspicion was not required for that stop.

Probable cause supported issuance of search warrant to open express mail package where drug dog, known to be reliable in narcotics detection, alerted to the package.

S) United States v Ganser (315 F. 3d 839 (2003) Seventh Circuit

Once the canine alerted to the letter, reasonable suspicion was elevated to probable cause.

Under the circumstances in this case, a four-day delay in delivering the letter intercepted from mail, was not reasonable.

T) United States v Walker (324 F. 3d 1032 (2003) Eighth Circuit

When a postal inspector moved an express mail package addressed to defendant to a separate room for a canine sniff, the package was seized for Fourth Amendment purposes.

Law enforcement authorities must possess a reasonable suspicion based upon articulable facts that a mailed package contains contraband before they may detain the package for investigation.

U) United States v Ramirez (342 F. 3d 1210 (2003) Tenth Circuit

Fact that a drug sniffing canine failed to alert on a mailed package which had been detained for investigation, did not require that all investigation of that package cease. Therefore, the subsequent opening of the package, pursuant to a search warrant obtained after two more canines alerted to the package, did not violate the Fourth Amendment. The factors which initially gave rise to reasonable suspicion of the package were unchanged by the negative results of the first sniff test.

Dog sniffs are not searches within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment.

V) United States v Morones (355 F. 3d 1108 (2004) Eighth Circuit

Law enforcement officer “seized” package sent to defendant by express mail service, when he removed package from the belt and then put it with control packages for a canine sniff. This type of seizure requires reasonable suspicion that the package is involved in narcotics transportation to justify the seizure.

W) United States v Logan (362 F. 3d 530 (2004) Eighth Circuit

To support a seizure, law enforcement must possess a reasonable suspicion based upon articulable facts that a package contains contraband before they may detain the package for a canine sniff.

X) United States v Fuller (374 F. 3d 617 (2004) Eighth Circuit

If an officer merely observes the outside of a package or lifts it from a conveyor belt and handles it briefly for inspection, there is no seizure under the Fourth Amendment.

However, when the officer removes the package from the mail stream and takes it to another part of a mail processing facility for a canine sniff, then such a stop is analogous to a Terry stop and must be supported by reasonable suspicion.

Y) United States v Smith (383 F. 3d 700 (2004) Eighth Circuit

If an officer lifts a package from a conveyor belt and handles it briefly for inspection, there is no seizure under the Fourth Amendment.

An officer must have reasonable suspicion that a piece of mail, or a package shipped via a common carrier, contains contraband to lawfully seize it when the package is removed from its ordinary process in the mail and is diverted for further investigation, such as a canine sniff.

Z) United States v Lakoskey (462 F. 3d 965 (2006) Eighth Circuit

Package was seized, for Fourth Amendment purposes, when it was pulled from regular stream of mail and subjected to dog sniff.

Two negative dog sniffs, that followed Postal Inspector’s detention of package, did not dispel officers’ reasonable suspicion that package contained drugs and continued detention of package thus did not violate Fourth Amendment.

The Inspector was not present at first dog sniff and thus did not act unreasonably in conducting second dog sniff. Only one day elapsed between removal of package from mail stream and when Inspector had facts necessary to support probable cause determination. Second sniff was conducted in very large area and was followed by positive sniff when package was placed in confined area.

AA) United States v Zacher (465 F. 3d 336 (2006) Eighth Circuit

A law enforcement officer must have reasonable suspicion before he or she may seize a package for investigatory purposes.

Police officer had reasonable suspicion to seize package being shipped based on police dog’s alert to package at shipping facility. Package in question was placed on floor at shipping facility along with other packages when police dog alerted to it. Dog alerted to package before it was to be sent out to be delivered by agreed upon deadline, and no change in custody occurred when package was placed on floor, since a reasonable person would expect a shipper to handle a package in same way.

The dog alerted to the package, tearing a hole in the cardboard envelope in the process. To confirm the alert, the police had an employee hide the package and the dog found it and alerted again.

After the dog alerted the second time, the magistrate ordered that a search warrant be issued.

BB) United States v Quoc Viet Hoang (486 F. 3d 1156 (2007) U.S. Court of Appeals Ninth Circuit

A dog sniff by a trained dog to detect contraband in a package is not an unreasonable search and seizure.

Neither the sniff by narcotics canine nor police officer's visual inspection of package addressed to defendant, after being allowed into airport hold room of parcel delivery service, were searches.

Narcotics canine's alert to package addressed to defendant within airport hold room of parcel delivery service created probable cause to believe that the package contained illicit drugs, and such probable cause was sufficient to support the subsequent detention of the package.

Ten minute detention, without reasonable suspicion or probable cause, of an in-transit package addressed to defendant located in parcel delivery company's hold room, which elapsed between police officer's approved initial entry into hold room and the officer's ultimate seizure of package addressed to defendant after narcotics canine alerted to methamphetamines, did not constitute a seizure, where delay did not interfere with company's ability to deliver his package on time.

Return to the Narcotics Legal Index

Return to the Home Page

Webmaster