Category Archives: Mail and packages

S.D.Tex.: Govt’s showing def’s connection to package showed standing; USPS delay while kind of long wasn’t unreasonable or abnormal

Defendant didn’t testify at the suppression hearing, but the officer’s testimony adequately showed defendant’s standing to contest the search of his package. An alias was used, and the government’s efforts to link him to the package showed his standing. The … Continue reading

Posted in Mail and packages, Standing | Comments Off on S.D.Tex.: Govt’s showing def’s connection to package showed standing; USPS delay while kind of long wasn’t unreasonable or abnormal

ND: Def’s arrangement for another to take possession of his package showed his standing

Defendant’s arrangement with another person to pickup his package showed his control over the package, and that gave him standing. State v. Gardner, 2019 ND 122, 2019 N.D. LEXIS 130 (May 16, 2019) (quoting Treatise § 3.13). “Vigen was not … Continue reading

Posted in Drug or alcohol testing, Mail and packages, Standing | Comments Off on ND: Def’s arrangement for another to take possession of his package showed his standing

OH12: Package in transit was reasonably briefly detained for dog sniff

Briefly detaining a package in transit at least on reasonable suspicion for a dog sniff was reasonable and not a seizure of the package. They were staying at a local B&B and received two FedEx packages there, one under an … Continue reading

Posted in Abstention, Dog sniff, Mail and packages | Comments Off on OH12: Package in transit was reasonably briefly detained for dog sniff

S.D.Ind.: Once there’s an indictment, a motion to suppress evidence is used rather than a motion for return of property

“Where, as here, an indictment has been filed and criminal proceedings are ongoing, the proper means for seeking return of seized property and to challenge the constitutionality of a search is a motion to suppress evidence.” United States v. Flick, … Continue reading

Posted in Mail and packages, Rule 41(g) / Return of property | Comments Off on S.D.Ind.: Once there’s an indictment, a motion to suppress evidence is used rather than a motion for return of property

D.V.I.: Package shipped from SC to VI did not cross “border”

Defendant mailing packages from South Carolina to the Virgin Islands under an alias has standing because the government alleges the alias on the package is defendant. The sealed packages have Fourth Amendment protection and a reasonable expectation of privacy. The … Continue reading

Posted in Mail and packages, Standing | Comments Off on D.V.I.: Package shipped from SC to VI did not cross “border”

D.Haw.: “Intended recipient” of a parcel whose name isn’t on it has no standing.

As an “intended recipient” of a parcel, defendant has no standing. His name isn’t on the package as sender or recipient. United States v. Williams, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 177669 (D. Haw. Oct. 16, 2018). Officers could reasonably believe that … Continue reading

Posted in Emergency / exigency, Mail and packages, Standing | Comments Off on D.Haw.: “Intended recipient” of a parcel whose name isn’t on it has no standing.

E.D.Tenn.: No standing in a shipped package found in another’s car where def’s name not on box as sender or recipient

Defendant had no standing to challenge the search of a previously shipped package located in another person’s vehicle that had his name nowhere on it as recipient or sender. Also, the search of the package was valid by consent and … Continue reading

Posted in Cell site location information, Good faith exception, Mail and packages, Standing | Comments Off on E.D.Tenn.: No standing in a shipped package found in another’s car where def’s name not on box as sender or recipient

E.D.N.C.: Def who shipped FedEx packages under an alias had no standing to contest a search in transit since it was impossible for him to claim them

Defendant shipped packages by Federal Express using his deceased brother’s name as an alias. He had no standing to contest the search of the packages at the Greensboro NC hub. He had no ability to retrieve the packages in transit … Continue reading

Posted in Mail and packages, Standing | Comments Off on E.D.N.C.: Def who shipped FedEx packages under an alias had no standing to contest a search in transit since it was impossible for him to claim them

ND: No PC for shipped package, but there was for def’s house

Police lacked probable cause for the search warrant for a package defendant was shipping just because they suspected it contained cash for drugs. There were suspicions because of volunteered explanations when he was shipping it, but no probable cause and … Continue reading

Posted in Cell site location information, Mail and packages | Comments Off on ND: No PC for shipped package, but there was for def’s house

S.D.N.Y.: Realtime cell phone tracking SW issued with PC

The USPS developed probable cause that defendant was shipping drugs by mail with his own mini mailing service, creating his own mailing labels and having acquired plenty of USPS envelopes and postage to do it. When another suspicious package came … Continue reading

Posted in Ineffective assistance, Mail and packages, Plain view, feel, smell | Comments Off on S.D.N.Y.: Realtime cell phone tracking SW issued with PC

W.D.La.: Short delay of a package in the mail for a dog sniff that fit a drug courier profile was not unreasonable

There is no Fourth Amendment interest that a package in the mail is not slightly detained for a dog sniff on reasonable suspicion. [One never knows exactly when a package is going to arrive, except when promised by Amazon, and … Continue reading

Posted in Cell phones, Mail and packages | Comments Off on W.D.La.: Short delay of a package in the mail for a dog sniff that fit a drug courier profile was not unreasonable

M.D.Fla.: There was RS for a dog sniff of a package in the mail, and the alert was PC for a SW; def’s motion to suppress suggested no standing

There was reasonable suspicion to detain a package in the mail for a dog sniff because of the way it was packaged and labeled suggested that it contained drugs. After the dog alert, there was a necessary delay in obtaining … Continue reading

Posted in Dog sniff, Mail and packages, Standing | Comments Off on M.D.Fla.: There was RS for a dog sniff of a package in the mail, and the alert was PC for a SW; def’s motion to suppress suggested no standing