Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca3-13-04830/USCOURTS-ca3-13-04830-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Richard Hayes
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

_____________

No. 13-4830

_____________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v.

RICHARD HAYES,

 Appellant

On Appeal from the District Court 

for the Western District of Pennsylvania

(District Court No.: 2-11-cr-00069-001)

District Judge: Honorable Terrence F. McVerry

Submitted under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)

on November 17, 2014

Before: RENDELL, JORDAN and NYGAARD, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed: March 27, 2015)

O P I N I O N

*

RENDELL, Circuit Judge,

 

* This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not 

constitute binding precedent.

Case: 13-4830 Document: 003111916847 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/27/2015
2

Appellant Richard Hayes appeals from the District Court a denial of his Motion to 

Suppress Evidence of a mailed package containing marijuana. The seizure of this

package led the authorities to discover another package containing cocaine, and upon 

such discovery, Hayes was charged with conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent 

to distribute 500 grams or more of a mixture and substance containing a detectable 

amount of cocaine. 

Hayes appeals on the basis that a postal service worker’s removal of a package 

from the mailstream to inspect it was not supported by reasonable suspicion, and once 

removed from the mailstream, the amount of time it took for the package to arrive at its 

destination was not reasonable and therefore, constituted an unreasonable seizure.

Hayes contends that because the postal service worker had no personal knowledge 

of the smell of raw marijuana, and her only knowledge of the smell of burnt marijuana 

from a college party she attended over 30 years ago, her suspicions of the package did not 

amount to the reasonable suspicion necessary to remove the package from the 

mailstream. Hayes also contends that as a result of this removal, the package did not 

arrive at its final destination for another four days, which was an unreasonable delay and 

therefore constituted an illegal seizure. 

A. Reasonable Suspicion to Remove Package from Mail Stream for Inspection

Petitioner argues that Kathleen Wells, the postal service worker who was on duty 

at the time his package was removed from the mailstream for inspection, did not have the 

reasonable suspicion required to do so. He points out that Wells lacked the knowledge to 

detect the smell of raw marijuana based on her memory of the odor of burnt marijuana 

Case: 13-4830 Document: 003111916847 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/27/2015
3

approximately 30 years ago at a college party she attended. He also asserts that the 

Postal Service Inspector on duty, Steven Celletti, erred in failing to inquire about Wells’ 

experience and qualifications in being able to identify raw marijuana before he instructed 

her to keep the package secure overnight, thereby keeping it out of the mailstream. 

Postal authorities may seize and detain mailed items for a reasonable amount of 

time, if they have a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. United States v. Van

Leeuwen, 397 U.S. 249, 251-52 (1970). Reasonable suspicion that a mail parcel contains 

contraband for purposes of temporary detention is evaluated under a totality of the 

circumstances standard. United States v. Colon, 386 F. App’x 229, 230-31 (3d Cir. 

2010).

Petitioner’s arguments that Wells and Celletti lacked reasonable suspicion are 

unavailing. First, “the smell of marijuana alone, if articulable and particularized, may 

establish not merely reasonable suspicion, but probable cause.” United States v. Ramos, 

443 F.3d 304, 308 (3d Cir. 2006). Several postal employees handling mail on the floor at 

the time Petitioner’s mail was removed from the mailstream smelled marijuana coming 

from the package, as it had come partly open in transit. They notified Wells, the postal 

service worker on duty, of the smell. She approached the package, and also smelled what 

she believed to be marijuana. She contacted Celletti, who instructed her to keep the 

package overnight. He inspected the package the next morning, and identified the odor 

emanating from it as marijuana. This smell, as identified by several individuals who 

handled the package, on its own established the reasonable suspicion necessary to remove 

the package from the mailstream.

Case: 13-4830 Document: 003111916847 Page: 3 Date Filed: 03/27/2015
4

However, many other factors, taken in totality, pointed to the existence of 

reasonable suspicion here. In Van Leeuwen, the Court upheld the authorities’ detention 

of a package because they had reasonable suspicion based on: (1) the nature and weight 

of the packages; (2) the fictitious return address on the packages; and (3) the foreign 

license plates of the person placing the packages into the mail. 397 U.S. at 252. Several 

facts, as observed by Wells, Celletti and Brian Plants, Celletti’s colleague, establish 

reasonable suspicion here: (1) multiple individuals believed the package smelled like 

marijuana, (2) its contents were wrapped in a black plastic bag, also an indicator of a 

narcotics shipment, (3) it contained scented dryer sheets, typically used by narcotics 

traffickers to mask the smell from canines, (4) the package contained a California source 

address, a known source of narcotics, and (5) no known individual by the name on the 

parcel was known to reside at the destination address. But, specifically in response to 

Hayes’s argument that Wells did not have reasonable suspicion to take the package out of 

the mailstream in the first place, the fact that she and others who handled the package 

believed that it smelled like marijuana was, by itself, sufficient to establish the requisite 

reasonable suspicion.

Petitioner objects to Celletti’s reliance on Wells’ belief that she smelled marijuana 

in the package in his decision to instruct her to hold the package overnight before he 

could verify the smell. The Government is correct, however, that Wells’ role could be 

analogized to that of a known informant, whose tip provided a law enforcement officer 

such as Celletti with sufficient information to establish reasonable suspicion. United 

States v. Torres, 534 F.3d 207, 211 (3d Cir. 2008). Under Torres, this Court evaluates an 

Case: 13-4830 Document: 003111916847 Page: 4 Date Filed: 03/27/2015
5

informant’s credibility by examining (1) whether the tip was relayed face-to-face such 

that the officer had the opportunity to appraise the witness’s credibility through 

observation, (2) the person providing the tip can be held responsible if her allegations 

turn out to be fabricated, (3) the content of the tip is not information that would be 

available to any observer, (4) and the person providing the information has recently 

witnessed the alleged criminal activity, and (5) the tip predicts what will follow, which 

allows the police a means to test the informant’s knowledge or credibility. 534 F.3d at 

211. All but one of these factors weigh in favor of Wells’ credibility, and therefore 

validate Celletti’s decision to trust her observations.

B. Length of Delay in Retaining Package Was Reasonable

Petitioner objects to the four-day delay in the delivery of the parcel to its 

destination address as an unreasonable seizure in violation of the Fourth Amendment. 

The temporary detention of packages for purposes of investigation does not run afoul of 

the Fourth Amendment provided there is reasonable suspicion. Van Leeuwen, 397 U.S. 

at 251. Van Leeuwen held a 29-hour delay reasonable due to the reasons for the delay—

the suspicious nature of the packages and the difficulty in contacting a distant recipient 

address for one of them. Id. at 253. In United States v. Golson this Court held a four-day 

delay not to be unreasonable where the delay was due in part to “investigation, scheduled 

leave, and the weekend.” 743 F.3d 44, 55 (3d Cir. 2014). The delay in delivering the 

parcel in Petitioner’s case was also due to investigation, an extended holiday weekend, 

and the unavailability of the Duty Magistrate Judge to provide a warrant when offices 

opened on the Tuesday after the long weekend. Therefore, it was not unreasonably long.

Case: 13-4830 Document: 003111916847 Page: 5 Date Filed: 03/27/2015
6

Petitioner is correct that “in assessing the effect of the length of the detention, we 

take into account whether the police diligently pursue their investigation.” United States 

v. Place, 462 U.S. 696, 709 (1983). Defendant argues that Celletti’s one-day delay in 

arriving at the mail distribution center to examine the package, his handing off the 

investigation to Plants, and Plants’ lack of effort to obtain a warrant over the holiday 

weekend evinced lack of diligence and unreasonably prolonged the warrantless seizure of 

the package. These facts do not demonstrate a lack of diligence. Celletti inspected the 

package in person the morning after its discovery in the mailstream because he knew that 

the steps necessary to either release the package for delivery or engage in a controlled 

delivery with law enforcement could not be accomplished that evening. After verifying 

that the package smelled like marijuana, Celletti handed the investigation to Plants due to 

Celletti’s heavy workload. Plants reinstated the investigation as soon as he was back 

from the weekend, and obtained a warrant the next day, the earliest that the Magistrate 

Judge was available to issue one. This case is hardly a situation, as Defendant suggests, 

where law enforcement officials obtained a search warrant “at their leisure”. United 

States v. Dass, 849 F.2d 414, 415 (9th Cir. 1988) (finding that 7 to 23 days of delay in 

seeking warrants after removing packages from the mail was unreasonable). 

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, we affirm the District Court’s ruling.

Case: 13-4830 Document: 003111916847 Page: 6 Date Filed: 03/27/2015