CA5: Examination of addresses on package was reasonable and led to RS

There was reasonable suspicion for detaining this package based on the lack of veracity of the delivery and return addresses. Examination of the package in the mail sorting system was not a search or seizure. United States v. Jones, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 33525 (5th Cir. Oct. 23, 2020).

Plaintiff’s claim of unlawful retention of her property isn’t a separate Fourth Amendment claim. “[T]he government’s ‘failure to return the items does not … state a separate Fourth Amendment claim of unreasonable seizure.’” Here, the initial seizure wasn’t contested. Bennett v. Dutchess Cty., 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 33539 (2d Cir. Oct. 22, 2020).

This entry was posted in Mail and packages, Reasonable suspicion, Rule 41(g) / Return of property. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.