N.D.Ohio: One day delay of package in transit was reasonable

Defendant lacked standing to challenge the search of a parcel of drugs. “Even if Defendant could challenge the delay of delivering the Target Parcel, his argument fails. While ‘theoretically’ the ‘detention of mail could at some point become an unreasonable seizure of “papers” or “effects” within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment,’ United States v. Van Leeuwen, 397 U.S. 249, 252 (1970), the Target Parcel’s detention here did not rise to that level. Defendant measures the interference from the time the package was placed in the mail, not when the government agents intercepted it. Starting from that period, the agents’ behavior was more than reasonable. In the span of one day, they retrieved the parcel, conducted further investigation, sought a search warrant, obtained a search warrant and searched the Target Parcel. Investigators then confirmed the substance of the blue pills and still delivered the Target Parcel before 1:00PM the next business day. Thus, any delay in the delivery of the Target Parcel was reasonable and Defendant’s challenge fails on its merits.” United States v. Lanier, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 221277 (N.D.Ohio Nov. 17, 2021).

“Accordingly, C.S. had a clearly established constitutional right not be tased where he showed no resistance other than a passive failure to respond to an order to show his hands, and where an obvious reason not to respond was the shock of the collision.” Browning v. Edmonson County, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 34090 (6th Cir. Nov. 17, 2021).

This entry was posted in Excessive force, Mail and packages, Qualified immunity. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.