N.D.Cal.: No REP against police squeezing a package in transit in the mail

Squeezing a mail package in transit isn’t the same as a suitcase near at hand (Jones), and there was no reasonable expectation of privacy. Quinonez v. United States, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 204220 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 8, 2024).

A blanket Fourth Amendment objection to forfeiture discovery requests was a discovery abuse. “Here, the district court found that Haussmann had ‘abused’ the discovery process by refusing to respond to interrogatories and asserting a blanket Fourth Amendment objection in response to discovery requests. … To be sure, the district court was drawing from the more common cases where a claimant refuses to respond to interrogatories while asserting a Fifth Amendment right against compelled self-incrimination. … But in a posture like this one where courts consider standing issues before they consider merits-based motions to suppress, …, the analogy between blanket Fourth and blanket Fifth Amendment objections was permissible.” United States v. $774,830.00 in United States Currency, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 28499 (6th Cir. Nov. 7, 2024).*

In apparently only the second anticipatory search case to be decided in the state, the court concludes that the package was on a sure course to defendant’s house and there was probable cause shown once the triggering event occurred. State v. Ortiz-Bedolla, 2024 Del. Super. LEXIS 741 (Nov. 8, 2024).*

This entry was posted in Anticipatory warrant, Mail and packages, Privileges, Reasonable expectation of privacy. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.