E-mailed copy of signed warrant was not violation of ND rule or Fourth Amendment

Detaining a Fed Ex package at the Fed Ex office for a dog sniff did not impinge on any privacy interest in the recipient. United States v. Zacher, 465 F.3d 336 (8th Cir. September 26, 2006), following United States v. Va Lerie, 424 F.3d 694, 701, 706 (8th Cir. 2005) (en banc), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 2966 (2006). The court also dealt with an e-mailed warrant issue, but it is only a tangential issue in the case. The magistrate took testimony over the telephone and attempted to fax the warrant to the Fed Ex office, but it failed to properly go through. So, the magistrate e-mailed the warrant to the officer at the Fed Ex office. The signed original, however, was in the magistrate’s hands, and the magistrate signed the e-mailed version, too. That was not a substantial violation of N.D.’s version of Rule 41.

The officer pulled the defendant over for weaving and driving too slow while talking on a cellphone. When he talked to the officer, he was extremely nervous, and the officer ran the DL number which came up suspended. The officer then asked for permission to search, and “Fishel’s legs seemed to fail and he had to brace himself against his vehicle. He then changed his story of ownership and said that he could not give consent to search the vehicle because it did not belong to him. The officer then radioed for the K-9 unit and, within a few minutes, the dog arrived and alerted to indicate the presence of drugs. A search of the vehicle located the methamphetamine.” There was reasonable suspicion to call for the drug dog, and the alert gave PC. United States v. Fishel, 467 F.3d 855 (5th Cir. October 10, 2006).*

Bailbondsmen who had aid of police in seizing their fugitive bond client could be sued under § 1983. Tirreno v. Mott, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 73416 (D. Conn. September 29, 2006).