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 a short delay is meaningless.] The delay isn’t a search. United States v. Huntsberry, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 107060 (W.D. La. June 27, 2018).

Defendant does not get discovery of how the information was taken from his cell phone because he only offers speculation about what it could show. For instance, are there missing exculpatory text messages that are lost? He doesn’t say even that. Speculation something might be helpful doesn’t justify discovery of how the cell phone was searched. United States v. Cardona-Lopez, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 105965 (S.D. Cal. June 25, 2018).*

This entry was posted in Cell phones, Mail and packages. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.