The USPS Postal Inspector did not act reasonably in determining that the package with methamphetamine was abandoned. The recipient disclaimed any interest in it, and the investigation into the sender, who would still have an interest in it, was woefully incomplete. There was a typo in the address. The government ascribes that to an attempt to be misleading, but that helps show probable cause, not abandonment. The government also fails on showing inevitable discovery. United States v. Vang, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 77429 (E.D. Wis. March 31, 2017), adopted, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 77428 (E.D. Wis. May 22, 2017):
Because Mr. Metke unreasonably determined that the return address did not exist, he did not make any efforts to investigate the valid Fisher Street address prior to opening the package. Importantly, he did not research whether Lisa Yang, the listed sender, was associated with that address. Mr. Metke therefore did not have a basis for concluding that the sender was unidentifiable. See U.S.’s Mem. 10.
The United States also argues that the package fit the profile of a drug parcel. See id. at 11-14. For example, the United States maintains that “Metke reasonably determined that the fictitious Ficher Street address was an intentional misspelling designed to deter law enforcement from tracing the package to the actual sender, not an innocent misspelling.” Id. at 14. These facts may have helped support probable cause for obtaining a search warrant, but they do not suggest that the sender abandoned the package. See Pitts, 322 F.3d at 459 (“There is nothing inherently wrong with a desire to remain anonymous when sending or receiving a package, and thus the expectation of privacy for a person using an alias in sending or receiving mail is one that society is prepared to recognize as reasonable.”). Nor do they undercut the fact that 1112 North Fisher Street # 101 is a valid address in Fresno and that, prior to opening the package, Mr. Metke did not know whether Lisa Yang lived at that address. Believing that a package contains drugs does not make it abandoned.
The government’s reliance on United States v. Pitts also is misplaced. In Pitts, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit held that a package was abandoned where the recipient expressly disavowed the package and the sender “launched the package into the stream of mail without any legitimate way of retrieving it.” Pitts, 322 F.3d at 455-57. In this case, however, Ms. Vang did have a legitimate way of retrieving the package: she could have presented a copy of the mailing label at a post office in Fresno after the package had been returned from Milwaukee. Mr. Metke testified at the hearing that identification would not necessarily have been be required if the sender had a copy of the mailing label. See Tr. 68-70, 83-88. That USPS owed the sender money for failing to deliver the package on time would not prevent the sender from reclaiming the package either. The sender could simply decline the refund, negating the need to fill out any paperwork.
The United States further points out that there is no evidence that Ms. Vang tracked the package, maintained the mailing label, called USPS about the status of the package, or had a link to the Fisher Street address. See U.S.’s Mem. 11. But Mr. Metke did not know any of those facts at the time he opened the package. See Rem, 984 F.2d at 811 (“[T]he flow of information considered stops at the moment the … officer opened the [seized item].”) Furthermore, Mr. Metke could not recall what postal scan he entered after the package was refused at the 33rd Street address. The United States therefore failed to establish that the sender would have had any reason to believe that the package was not delivered as addressed.
In sum, the Court finds that the United States has not demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that a reasonable postal inspector in Mr. Metke’s position would have believed that the sender had abandoned the package. It is clear that Mr. Metke sincerely and accurately believed that the package contained drugs, and he is to be commended for his skills and diligence. Nevertheless, the sender of the package never explicitly denied ownership of the package, and the sender’s conduct did not manifest an intent to relinquish her property interests.
by John Wesley Hall
Criminal Defense Lawyer and
Search and seizure law consultant
Little Rock, Arkansas
Contact: forhall @ aol.com / The Book www.johnwesleyhall.com
"If it was easy, everybody would be doing it. It isn't, and they don't." —Me
"Life is not a matter of holding good cards, but of playing a poor hand well." –Josh Billings (pseudonym of Henry Wheeler Shaw), Josh Billings on Ice, and Other Things (1868) (erroneously attributed to Robert Louis Stevenson, among others)
“I am still learning.” —Domenico Giuntalodi (but misattributed to Michelangelo Buonarroti (common phrase throughout 1500's)).
"Love work; hate mastery over others; and avoid intimacy with the government."
—Shemaya, in the Thalmud
"It is a pleasant world we live in, sir, a very pleasant world. There are bad people in it, Mr. Richard, but if there were no bad people, there would be no good lawyers."
—Charles Dickens, “The Old Curiosity Shop ... With a Frontispiece. From a Painting by Geo. Cattermole, Etc.” 255 (1848)
"A system of law that not only makes certain conduct criminal, but also lays down rules for the conduct of the authorities, often becomes complex in its application to individual cases, and will from time to time produce imperfect results, especially if one's attention is confined to the particular case at bar. Some criminals do go free because of the necessity of keeping government and its servants in their place. That is one of the costs of having and enforcing a Bill of Rights. This country is built on the assumption that the cost is worth paying, and that in the long run we are all both freer and safer if the Constitution is strictly enforced."
—Williams
v. Nix, 700 F. 2d 1164, 1173 (8th Cir. 1983) (Richard Sheppard Arnold,
J.), rev'd Nix v. Williams, 467 US. 431 (1984).
"The criminal goes free, if he must, but it is the law that sets him free. Nothing can destroy a government more quickly than its failure to observe its own laws,
or worse, its disregard of the charter of its own existence." —Mapp
v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, 659 (1961).
"Any costs the exclusionary rule are costs imposed directly by the Fourth Amendment."
—Yale Kamisar, 86 Mich.L.Rev. 1, 36 n. 151 (1987).
"There have been powerful hydraulic pressures throughout our history that
bear heavily on the Court to water down constitutional guarantees and give the
police the upper hand. That hydraulic pressure has probably never been greater
than it is today."
— Terry
v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 39 (1968) (Douglas, J., dissenting).
"The great end, for which men entered into society, was to secure their
property."
—Entick
v. Carrington, 19 How.St.Tr. 1029, 1066, 95 Eng. Rep. 807 (C.P. 1765)
"It is a fair summary of history to say that the safeguards of liberty have
frequently been forged in controversies involving not very nice people. And
so, while we are concerned here with a shabby defrauder, we must deal with his
case in the context of what are really the great themes expressed by the Fourth
Amendment."
—United
States v. Rabinowitz, 339 U.S. 56, 69 (1950) (Frankfurter, J., dissenting)
"The course of true law pertaining to searches and seizures, as enunciated
here, has not–to put it mildly–run smooth."
—Chapman
v. United States, 365 U.S. 610, 618 (1961) (Frankfurter, J., concurring).
"A search is a search, even if it happens to disclose nothing but the
bottom of a turntable."
—Arizona
v. Hicks, 480 U.S. 321, 325 (1987)
"For the Fourth Amendment protects people, not places. What a person knowingly
exposes to the public, even in his own home or office, is not a subject of Fourth
Amendment protection. ... But what he seeks to preserve as private, even in
an area accessible to the public, may be constitutionally protected."
—Katz
v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 351 (1967)
“Experience should teach us to be most on guard to
protect liberty when the Government’s purposes are beneficent. Men born
to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil-minded
rulers. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men
of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding.”
—United
States v. Olmstead, 277 U.S. 438, 479 (1925) (Brandeis, J., dissenting)
“Liberty—the freedom from unwarranted
intrusion by government—is as easily lost through insistent nibbles by
government officials who seek to do their jobs too well as by those whose purpose
it is to oppress; the piranha can be as deadly as the shark.”
—United
States v. $124,570, 873 F.2d 1240, 1246 (9th Cir. 1989)
"You can't always get what you want /
But if you try sometimes / You just might find / You get what you need."
—Mick Jagger & Keith Richards
"In Germany, they first came for the communists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a communist. Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for
the Catholics and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Catholic. Then they came
for me–and by that time there was nobody left to speak up."
—Martin Niemöller (1945) [he served seven years in a concentration
camp]
“You know, most men would get discouraged by
now. Fortunately for you, I am not most men!”
---Pepé Le Pew
"The point of the Fourth Amendment, which often is not grasped by zealous officers,
is not that it denies law enforcement the support of the usual inferences which
reasonable men draw from evidence. Its protection consists in requiring that
those inferences be drawn by a neutral and detached magistrate instead of being
judged by the officer engaged in the often competitive enterprise of ferreting
out crime."
—Johnson
v. United States, 333 U.S. 10, 13-14 (1948)