N.D.Ga.: Package from Hong Kong arriving at Doraville, GA was still shown to be at “functional equivalent of the border”

The government established that packages sent from Hong Kong and observed in Doraville, GA were still at the “functional equivalent of the border” because it was apparent that they had not been opened or tampered with in transit. United States v. Lokhandwalla, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 161725 (N.D.Ga. Dec. 2, 2015), R&R 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 161935 (N.D.Ga. Nov. 12, 2015). This case seemingly eliminates the need for a package to be searched at a major transit point. As long as it appears not to have been opened, it’s still the “functional equivalent of the border” which kind of nullifies this requirement:

In this case, the Magistrate Judge found that the evidence produced by the Government at the suppression hearing confirmed that the boxes came into the United States from Hong Kong, went through an unidentified United States postal facility before being seen at the Doraville Post Office, and the boxes were heavily taped and did not appear to have been previously tampered with. R&R at 6; Tr. at 7-13, 16-19, 21, 57, 64-66. See United States v. King, 517 F.2d 350, 351 (5th Cir. 1975) (upholding warrantless search of envelopes at Birmingham, Alabama post office that had entered the United States at San Francisco and routed to Birmingham without first being inspected). This Court agrees that the Government has produced sufficient circumstantial evidence that the conditions of the boxes remained unchanged from the border crossing until the search in Doraville, Georgia. Defendant’s objection is therefore OVERRULED.

Defendant also objects to the Magistrate Judge’s finding that the warrantless searches of the boxes were supported by reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. Def’s Objs. at 3-5. “When assessing reasonable suspicion, courts must ‘look at the totality of the circumstances of each case to see whether the detaining [agent] has a particularized and objective basis for suspecting legal wrongdoing.'” United States v. Roberts, 357 F. App’x 226, 227 (11th Cir. 2009) (quoting United States v. Arvizu, 534 U.S. 266, 273 (2002)). “Although this standard is considerably less demanding than proof of wrongdoing by a preponderance of the evidence and less than probable cause, the Fourth Amendment nevertheless requires that the police articulate facts which provide some minimal, objective justification” for the search. United States v. Williams, 876 F.2d 1521, 1524 (11th Cir. 1989).