CA9: USPO’s delivery guarantee creates no constitutional possessory interest in a package in transit

The post office delivery guarantee does not create a constitutional possessory interest such that US Postal Inspectors could delay a package in Juneau, Alaska, for a dog sniff and a search warrant to open it before delivery. United States v. Jefferson, 566 F.3d 928 (9th Cir. 2009):

The reasoning of LaFrance [from 1st Cir.] is convincing. We hold that an addressee has no Fourth Amendment possessory interest in a package that has a guaranteed delivery time until such delivery time has passed. Before the guaranteed delivery time, law enforcement may detain such a package for inspection purposes without any Fourth Amendment curtailment. See United States v. Gill, 280 F.3d 923, 932-33 (9th Cir. 2002) (Gould, J., concurring) (“Investigators may inspect mail as they wish without any Fourth Amendment curtailment, so long as the inspection does not amount to a ‘search,’ and so long as it is conducted quickly enough so that it does not become a seizure by significantly delaying the date of delivery.”). Once the guaranteed delivery time passes, however, law enforcement must have a “reasonable and articulable suspicion” that the package contains contraband or evidence of illegal activity for further detainment. See Hoang, 486 F.3d at 1160.

In this case, the post office guaranteed that Jefferson would receive his package by 3:00 p.m. on April 7. Any expectation that Jefferson or the post office may have had that the package could arrive earlier is irrelevant. See LaFrance, 879 F.2d at 7. The postal inspector did not need any suspicion to detain Jefferson’s package overnight on April 6 because Jefferson did not yet have a possessory interest in the package. By the time “the constitutional chemistry was altered” at 3:00 p.m. on April 7, see id., law enforcement had already established probable cause to seize Jefferson’s package. See Hoang, 486 F.3d at 1160 n.1. Thus, law enforcement acted well within the bounds of the Fourth Amendment in detaining, seizing and then searching Jefferson’s package.

In sum, we hold that a package addressee does not have a Fourth Amendment possessory interest in a package that has a guaranteed delivery time until the guaranteed delivery time has passed. Jefferson had no Fourth Amendment possessory interest in the “timely” delivery of his package until 3:00 p.m. on April 7. We need not weigh the public interest in the package’s detainment against the protected private interest because probable cause was established before Jefferson gained a possessory interest in the package. See id. at 1159.

Defendant’s arrest warrant could be executed anytime, and the government had no duty to arrest him before he committed additional drug sales. United States v. Jones, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 44222 (S.D. Ohio May 26, 2009).*

It was immediately apparent to the officer that defendant’s gun and drugs were contraband. United States v. Guzman-Cornejo, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 44191 (N.D. Ill. May 26, 2009).*

“Straight forward” request to search after defendant was told he could go was voluntary consent. State v. Evans, 9 So. 3d 767 (Fla. App. 2DCA 2009).*

Extreme nervousness, lying about activities, and shaking hands was reasonable suspicion. Thayer v. State, 2009 Ind. App. LEXIS 841 (April 24, 2009).*