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 a search warrant. Defendant’s own motion to suppress suggests no standing: “The Defendant’s possessory interest was minimal, because he declined to pick up Parcel 1 after being told he could do so. Indeed, the Defendant’s own Motion skeptically refers to Parcel 1 as ‘allegedly address[ed] to Fernando Garcia.’ The government had a strong interest holding the property as evidence, because it had already probable cause to believe it contained narcotics, based on the canine alert. Having reviewed the evidence, the Court finds that the delay in seeking the search warrant was reasonable.” United States v. Garcia-Geigel, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2171 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 5, 2018).*

This entry was posted in Dog sniff, Mail and packages, Standing. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.