Search and seizure – Post office – Drugs

Listen to this article

Where a Superior Court judge allowed the defendant’s motion to suppress evidence discovered in a mail package, the order must be reversed because (1) the postal inspector who identified and seized the package had a reasonable suspicion that justified seizing it and the length of time for the seizure was reasonable, and (2) the police officers had probable cause to search the package based on the certified drug-sniffing canine’s positive alert that the package contained a controlled substance.

“We begin with the Commonwealth’s argument that the motion judge erred in allowing the defendant’s motion to suppress because [postal inspector Richard] Tracy had reasonable suspicion to seize the package and expose it to a drug-sniffing canine. …

“Here, reasonable suspicion supported the package’s delayed delivery and its exposure to a drug-sniffing canine. Tracy has fourteen years of experience with investigating ‘criminal activities involving the use of the mail, including the investigation of items not allowed to be mailed such as controlled substances, which are given over to U.S. Postal Service for delivery.’ Tracy had a legitimate suspicion about the package for several reasons. The package was ‘approximately 12 inches by 12 inches, [] approximately 6 inches in thickness, and weigh[ed] approximately 5 lbs, 15 oz.’ The postage fee paid was a total of sixty-one dollars and sixty cents. … The Springfield [United States Postal Inspection Service (USPIS)] was alerted by the Puerto Rico USPIS after they were unable to locate the purported sender of the package. The Puerto Rico USPIS found that the listed sender of the package was not associated with the address listed. … After further investigation, Tracy himself discovered the destination address was an auto repair shop with which the recipient of the package was not associated. … In addition, Tracy had personal knowledge from previous investigations that the package’s origin is an area that is known for shipping cocaine to the United States via the postal service. … We conclude that these facts, taken together, provide sufficient reasonable suspicion to seize the package and expose it to a drug-sniffing canine.

“We also conclude that there was no unreasonable delay in the delivery of the package. … Tracy acted diligently in investigating the recipient of the package and exposing it to the drug-sniffing canine. The package was detained for a maximum of four days before the Federal search warrant was issued. While we understand other cases have proceeded on a faster timeline, we would be hard pressed to find that five days constitutes an unreasonable delay. Moreover, the suspect never inquired about the location of the package. As such, the sender was never given misinformation about the package’s whereabouts. …

“Based on the uncontroverted evidence from the hearing and the affidavits filed in support of the Federal and State search warrants, there is no need to remand for further findings on whether there was probable cause for the Federal and State search warrants. Because Charon provided a positive alert that the package contained a controlled substance within a short time following its seizure, and based on the other information set forth in Tracy’s affidavit, there was sufficient probable cause to issue the Federal search warrant. … We also conclude that because the police recovered cocaine from the package upon executing the Federal search warrant, there was probable cause to issue the State search warrant for the package’s destination, i.e. 11 Lowell Street, West Springfield.”

Commonwealth v. Merced (Lawyers Weekly No. 81-713-18) (9 pages) (No. 17-P-1624) (Sept. 28, 2018).