There was reasonable suspicion to detain a package in the mail for a dog sniff because of the way it was packaged and labeled suggested that it contained drugs. After the dog alert, there was a necessary delay in obtaining a search warrant. Defendant\u2019s own motion to suppress suggests no standing: \u201cThe Defendant’s possessory interest was minimal, because he declined to pick up Parcel 1 after being told he could do so. Indeed, the Defendant’s own Motion skeptically refers to Parcel 1 as \u2018allegedly address[ed] to Fernando Garcia.\u2019 The government had a strong interest holding the property as evidence, because it had already probable cause to believe it contained narcotics, based on the canine alert. Having reviewed the evidence, the Court finds that the delay in seeking the search warrant was reasonable.\u201d United States v. Garcia-Geigel, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2171 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 5, 2018).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
There was reasonable suspicion to detain a package in the mail for a dog sniff because of the way it was packaged and labeled suggested that it contained drugs. After the dog alert, there was a necessary delay in obtaining … Continue reading