Case Title: State v. Cooper

Citation: 163 Vt 44, 652 A.2d 995

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 1994-11-10T00:00:00Z

Document:
STATE_V_COOPER.93-490; 163 Vt 44; 652 A.2d 995

[Filed 10-Nov-1994]

NOTICE:  This opinion is subject to motions for reargument under V.R.A.P. 40
as well as formal revision before publication in the Vermont Reports. 
Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Vermont Supreme
Court, 109 State Street, Montpelier, Vermont 05609Ä 0801 of any errors in
order that corrections may be made before this opinion goes to press. 


                                    No. 93-490


State of Vermont                     Supreme Court

                                     On Appeal from
     v.                              District Court of Vermont,
                                     Unit No. 1, Bennington Circuit

Alexander Cooper                     September Term, 1994



John P. Morrissey, Acting J.

Jeffrey L. Amestoy, Attorney General, and Susan R. Harritt, Assistant
 Attorney General,   Montpelier, for plaintiff-appellee 

William K. Sessions III and Marybeth McCaffrey of Sessions, Keiner, Dumont &
 Barnes, P.C.,   Middlebury, for defendant-appellant 



PRESENT:  Allen, C.J., Gibson, Dooley, Morse and Johnson, JJ.


     GIBSON, J.   Defendant Alexander Cooper appeals from a conditional
guilty plea to one count of conspiracy to deliver marijuana in violation of
13 V.S.A.  1404.  On appeal, defendant challenges the trial court's denial
of his motion to suppress evidence of an Express Mail package that contained
marijuana and served as the basis for the charge against him.  We affirm. 

     On November 25, 1991, United States Postal Inspector Robert Sticht of
Tuscon, Arizona 

 

became suspicious of an Express Mail package addressed to a post office box
in Manchester, Vermont.  He contacted United States Postal Inspector Terrence
Loftus in Hartford, Connecticut, advising Loftus that he suspected the
package contained illegal narcotics.  Inspector Sticht informed Inspector
Loftus that the package was sent via Express Mail, a service commonly used by
narcotics distributors, that it originated from Tuscon, a known narcotics
distribution point, and that it contained a false return address.  Inspector
Loftus made arrangements to intercept the package in White River Junction,
Vermont on November 26. 

     Inspector Loftus arrived in White River Junction on the evening of
November 26.  He retrieved the suspicious package from the White River
Junction Post Office, and arranged to have a dog trained to detect narcotics
sniff the package in Springfield at 7:00 a.m. the next morning.  Inspector
Loftus took the package to Springfield the following morning where it was
placed on the floor with seven other packages of similar size.  The dog
reacted positively to the suspicious package, and the test was repeated; the
dog singled out the suspicious package a second time.  The package was then
routed to Manchester while Inspector Loftus went to the United States
District Court in Rutland to obtain a search warrant.  After the search
warrant issued and the package arrived in Manchester, the Manchester police
opened it and found what they believed to be marijuana.  The package was
resealed and delivered to the addressee shortly after 12:00 p.m. on November
27.  The addressee was subsequently arrested and named defendant as the
person who mailed the package. 

     Defendant raises four arguments on appeal.  Defendant first claims that
Inspector Loftus did not have reasonable suspicion to justify his seizure of
the Express Mail package in White River Junction, and therefore the seizure
was illegal under the Fourth Amendment to the United 

 

States Constitution and Chapter I, Article 11 of the Vermont Constitution. 
Alternatively, he argues, that even if there was reasonable suspicion to
detain the package, the length of detention was unreasonable and therefore
violated both the Fourth Amendment and Article 11.  Defendant also argues
that the evidence should be suppressed because the search warrant affidavit
failed to meet the standard of V.R.Cr.P. 41(c).  Finally, defendant contends
that the canine sniff was an illegal search under Article 11.   We address
defendant's arguments in turn. 

                                           I.
                                           A.

     Defendant first claims that Inspector Loftus did not have reasonable
suspicion to detain the Express Mail package as required by the Fourth
Amendment.  He argues that the package met only two of the seven elements
that comprise the drug package profile used by the postal service to detect
illegal narcotics in the mails, specifically, the fictitious return address
and the package's size and shape.(FN1)  For reasonable suspicion, defendant
contends, the package must fit a majority of the seven elements.  The
district court concluded that reasonable suspicion was established by the
false return address, the fact that the package was sent Express Mail, the
size, shape and weight of the package, and Inspector Loftus's knowledge that
Tuscon is a known origination point for illegal drug distribution.  Thus, the
court concluded, Inspector Loftus could lawfully detain the package to dispel
or confirm his suspicions.  We agree. 

     The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution protects
individuals from unreasonable government searches and seizures.  U.S. Const.
amend. IV.  Although postal 

 

authorities generally must have probable cause and a warrant to open and
inspect mail, they may detain a mail package if they have reasonable
suspicion that it is involved in criminal activity. United States v. Van
Leeuwen,