Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-06-03219/USCOURTS-ca8-06-03219-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
J. C. Collins
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable James M. Moody, United States District Judge for the Eastern

District of Arkansas.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 06-3219

___________

United States of America, *

*

Plaintiff - Appellee, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

v. * Eastern District of Arkansas.

*

J. C. Collins, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Defendant - Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: May 17, 2007

Filed: June 14, 2007

___________

Before WOLLMAN, BRIGHT, and JOHN R. GIBSON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

A grand jury indicted J.C. Collins for conspiracy to distribute more than 500

grams of methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846, money laundering in

violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(1)(A)(i), and conspiracy to launder drug proceeds in

violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(h). Prior to his trial, Collins filed a motion to suppress

the currency seized both from his person and a Federal Express package addressed to

him. The district court1

 denied the motion to suppress and the jury returned a guilty

Appellate Case: 06-3219 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/14/2007 Entry ID: 3319483
-2-

verdict against Collins on all counts. The district judge imposed a sentence on Collins

of life imprisonment. Collins now appeals from the conviction, raising the sole issue

of the trial court’s denial of his motion to suppress. For the following reasons, we

affirm.

Collins argues that police unlawfully seized from a Mail Boxes Etc. store a

Federal Express package addressed to him by removing it to the loading dock and

performing a canine sniff. He also contends that police lacked reasonable suspicion

to seize the package after the dog alerted to the presence of contraband. These

arguments lack merit. We assume, without deciding, that removal of the package

constituted a seizure for Fourth Amendment purposes, but conclude reasonable

suspicion supported the removal. Reasonable suspicion exists when there is sufficient

evidence at the time of the seizure for a reasonable officer to suspect that the package

contained contraband. United States v. Zacher, 465 F.3d 336, 338 (8th Cir. 2006). 

In the instant case, prior to arriving at the store, police (a) understood that a

known drug supplier (the sender) was sending cash, for at least the second time in

consecutive weeks, via Federal Express, (b) knew this was a common method of

exchanging drug sale proceeds, and (c) possessed reliable information that Collins,

also a known drug supplier, had previously used Western Union for such purpose.

This information created reasonable suspicion to justify the brief seizure, if any, of the

package on the loading dock and the canine’s subsequent alert served to permit seizing

the package while the officers obtained a warrant for its search. See id. at 339

(finding dog’s alert created reasonable suspicion to permit seizure).

Collins also argues that on October 13, 2003, police unlawfully seized

approximately $11,000 in cash from his person at the Little Rock airport. Collins

maintains that although he consented to a pat-down search, the incriminating nature

of the money found during the pat-down was not immediately apparent. We disagree.

Appellate Case: 06-3219 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/14/2007 Entry ID: 3319483
-3-

Police had ample information that Collins had been traveling in central

Arkansas collecting money from drug debts and would be flying from Little Rock to

California with the proceeds on his person. Considering the information police knew

at the time of the search, it became immediately apparent that the approximately

$11,000 in cash on Collins’s person was incriminating. See United States v. BustosTorres, 396 F.3d 935, 945 (8th Cir. 2005) (concluding wad of paper money felt during

pat-down search immediately apparent as incriminating considering circumstances

leading to stop).

For these reasons, the district court properly rejected the motion to suppress.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 06-3219 Page: 3 Date Filed: 06/14/2007 Entry ID: 3319483