W.D.Mo.: FedEx’s taking a package off its conveyor belt for a dog sniff wasn’t a seizure that interfered with def’s possessory interest

“[T]he police did not ‘seize’ the package until after the dog alerted to the presence of drugs. It was not a seizure to remove the package from the FedEx conveyor belt, carry it 200 feet to the back of the warehouse, and subject it to a dog sniff. This was in accordance with FedEx’s established procedures and requirement that dogs not be around the conveyor belt. As a result, FedEx did not lose custody of the package until the police left with it, and it is apparent from the record that delivery would not have been delayed if the dog sniff had been negative.” United States v. Green, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 218043 (W.D. Mo. Dec. 19, 2019).

There was reasonable suspicion to stop defendant near the scene of a robbery. “Here, under the totality of the circumstances, Resendes had reasonable suspicion to stop and detain Rosser-Stewart. At the time of their encounter, Resendes was searching for a black male with long braided hair, about 5’8″ to 6′ tall, with a medium build and dark complexion, wearing a hooded sweatshirt. [Arrest Report at 2; Turret Tape at 8]. Resendes encountered Rosser-Stewart on Carl Avenue, approximately a quarter mile away from where the suspects’ vehicle had been abandoned roughly thirty minutes prior.” He closely matched the description. United States v. Rosser-Stewart, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 218078 (D. Mass. Dec. 17, 2019).*

This entry was posted in Dog sniff, Reasonable expectation of privacy, Reasonable suspicion, Seizure. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.