CA5: 17-day delay of package for investigation and SW was still reasonable

This 17-day delay in holding a package for investigation and developing probable cause for a search warrant was not unreasonable. There was reasonable suspicion for the initial detention, and, despite the delay, it was still reasonable. United States v. Martinez, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 2887 (5th Cir. Feb. 1, 2022). This is noteworthy:

In this case, the postal employee observed several drug package profile characteristics. Specifically, (1) the information on the shipping labels was handwritten, (2) the postage fees were paid in cash, allowing the sender to remain anonymous or avoid detection by law enforcement; (3) the Southern District of California is known as a source region for controlled substances; and (4) at least one of the men mailing a package appeared to be anxious or nervous. Finally, although the handwriting on the shipping labels for the two packages appeared identical, as though the same person filled out both shipping labels, the purported senders’ names on the labels were different. Based on this aggregate of factors, and contrary to Martinez’s contentions, the postal employee had reasonable suspicion to detain the packages.

Martinez next argues that the 17-day delay between the detention of the package and its search constitutes an unreasonable, warrantless seizure in violation of the Fourth Amendment. He asserts that the delay “required a heightened finding of probable cause.” In so asserting, Arias fails to acknowledge that probable cause actually was established on March 20, 2019, eight days after the packages were intercepted. In any event, we agree with the district court that the eight-day delay in establishing probable cause and the eight-day delay in obtaining search warrants were not unreasonable, as set forth below.

Although there is no bright-line rule regarding how long a package may be detained lawfully prior to obtaining a search warrant, the Supreme Court has noted that “detention of mail could at some point become an unreasonable seizure of ‘papers’ or ‘effects’ within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment.” In Beard, we noted that “the relevant factors to consider in determining reasonableness include: investigatory diligence, the length of the detention, and whether there were circumstances beyond the investigator’s control.” We further noted that “these factors are always considered in the context of the specific facts of the case under review.”

Arias received the packages on March 14, 2019, two days after the postal employee intercepted them. He observed that the handwriting on the labels appeared identical, yet the senders’ names and addresses were different. Arias could locate the senders’ and recipients’ addresses through his database research, but he was unable to associate the purported senders’ and recipients’ names with those addresses. Based on his experience, Arias knew that drug traffickers will enter false or fictitious sender and recipient names and/or addresses in order to avoid detection by law enforcement. He also learned from the USPS database that someone with a Mexican IP address attempted to track both packages after they were intercepted. Based on his experience, Arias also knew that drug traffickers use the USPS because the tracking website allows them to search for their packages.

On March 20, 2019, six days after he received the packages, Arias contacted a border patrol officer to perform a canine sniff of the packages. The dog alerted to both packages, indicating that he detected the odor or aroma of one or more controlled substances emanating from the packages. At that point, as the magistrate judge and district court determined, reasonable suspicion was elevated to probable cause to search the packages.

The above facts establish that Arias was diligent in his investigation of the two packages after receiving them. Furthermore, we agree with the magistrate judge and district court that the eight-day delay in obtaining canine sniffs of the packages to establish probable cause was not unreasonable. It was undisputed that during those eight days, which included a weekend, Arias was required to work on other cases and missed work due to illness. Under these facts, the eight-day delay in obtaining probable cause to search the packages did not amount to an unreasonable seizure.

We next examine whether the additional eight-day delay between the establishment of probable cause and obtaining the search warrants was unreasonable. Again, the factors this Court examines in determining reasonableness are investigatory diligence, the length of the detention, and whether there were circumstances beyond the investigator’s control. …