{"id":1314,"date":"2008-02-03T13:12:11","date_gmt":"2007-09-02T14:09:31","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2007-09-02T14:09:31","slug":"en-US","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=1314","title":{"rendered":"Shipper whose name was not on a box shipped by UPS had no standing to challenge its search"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Defendant lacked an expectation of privacy in a package that was shipped between the continental U.S. and Puerto Rico and subjected to an inspection where he put another person&#8217;s name on it as both shipper and recipient. United States v. Colon-Solis, 508 F. Supp. 2d 186 (D. P.R. 2007). <em>Comment:<\/em> The district court, in an extremely long footnote (n. 2), noted that packages shipped between the U.S. and P.R. are not subject to border inspection because P.R. is a part of the U.S. The government, however, conducts limited inspections for a non-customs purpose. The issue remains open, but the court expressed doubt as to the legality of those inspections:<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>The legality of the search itself turns on whether U.S. Customs agents were statutorily authorized to conduct random, warrantless searches on items imported to Puerto Rico from the continental United States. The government maintains their ability to search such packages is rooted in the regulations mandating the filing of a Shippers Export Declaration (&#8220;SED&#8221;). They claim U.S. Customs and Boarder Protection (&#8220;CBP&#8221;) agents are authorized to conduct random searches for SED verification and enforcement purposes. The SED is a dual purpose document used by the Census Bureau for statistical reporting purposes only, and by the Bureau of Industry and Security and other government agencies for export control purposes. 15 C.F.R. \u00a7 30.4. It is this dual use that creates a novel legal issue not previously addressed in the First Circuit or elsewhere. Though the SED is required under two separate agencies and for completely separate purposes, the same form is used for both. A problem arises in that one agency, the Census Bureau, requires the SED to be filed for shipments from the United States to Puerto Rico while the other agency, the Bureau of Industry and Security, excludes Puerto Rico-bound shipments from the SED requirement. Moreover, the provisions governing the use of SEDs are unique to each agency and at times contradictory. (See i.e. 15 C.F.R. \u00a7 30.4(a) (designating that the SED provisions of that part apply only to the statistical reporting requirements and not to the export control requirements)). It is drafting such as this that breeds confusion.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>Consent to &#8220;look around&#8221; authorized a search for guns and drugs. <a href=\"http:\/\/www.ca3.uscourts.gov\/opinarch\/061904np.pdf\">United States v. Cole<\/a>, 246 Fed. Appx. 112 (3d Cir. 2007)* (unpublished).<\/p>\n<p>Assuming, without deciding, that defendant&#8217;s stop was illegal, his flight was an intervening act that purged the taint. United States v. Jackson, 246 Fed. Appx. 478 (9th Cir. 2007)* (unpublished).  The First Circuit had a similar case a few days later, and defendant was never seized until after flight. <a href=\"http:\/\/www.ca1.uscourts.gov\/cgi-bin\/getopn.pl?OPINION=05-2229.01A\">United States v. Holloway<\/a>, 2007 WL 2460035 (1st Cir.(Mass.) Aug 31, 2007). <\/p>\n<p>Officers had reasonable suspicion for a probationer search from information from an informant that provided &#8220;rich detail&#8221; that was corroborated on important points. Most importantly, &#8220;the suppression analysis could have begun and ended with this fact: before the search began, Loranger admitted that the probation officers would find marijuana at his place. Statements against penal interest are presumed reliable. &#8230; Loranger essentially volunteered probable cause to believe that evidence of a crime would be found on the premises.&#8221; United States v. Jeffery, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 64374 (W.D. Wis. August 30, 2007).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>b2evALnk.b2WPAutP <a class=\"more-link\" href=\"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=1314\">Continue reading <span class=\"meta-nav\">&rarr;<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"pingsdone","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1314","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1314","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=1314"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1314\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=1314"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=1314"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=1314"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}