Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-03-03766/USCOURTS-ca8-03-03766-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
David Hernandez
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

*

The Honorable Richard E. Dorr, United States District Judge for the Western

District of Missouri, sitting by designation.

1

The Honorable Linda R. Reade, United States District Judge for the Northern

District of Iowa. 

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 03-3766

___________

United States of America, *

*

Plaintiff-Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Northern District of Iowa.

David Hernandez, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Defendant-Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: May 12, 2004

 Filed July 14, 2004

___________

Before LOKEN, Chief Judge, BRIGHT, Circuit Judge, and DORR,*

 District Judge.

___________

PER CURIAM.

David Hernandez appeals his conviction for possession of cocaine after a

previous drug felony conviction, 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(1a)(1), 841(b)(1)(C), and 851. On

appeal, Hernandez asserts that the district court1

 erred in failing to hold a hearing to

Appellate Case: 03-3766 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/14/2004 Entry ID: 1787839 
-2-

determine whether the subsequent state search of a Federal Express package exceeded

the scope of the private search conducted by Federal Express.

On October 14, 2002, Federal Express employees in Pharr, Texas notified local

law enforcement that they had a "suspicious" package. Texas Department of Public

Safety narcotics agents went to the Federal Express terminal where the employees

showed the agents a small, opened cardboard package. The package contained

styrofoam packaging peanuts, which surrounded a taped, clear plastic bag. The clear

plastic bag contained two plastic wrapped rock-like bundles. 

A field test indicated that the rock-like bundles contained cocaine. The agents

then shipped the box to drug enforcement authorities in Cedar Rapids, Iowa. The

DEA secured a search warrant for the package and an anticipatory search warrant for

the address listed on the package. 

After obtaining the warrants, law enforcement officers delivered the package

to the address listed on the package. Hernandez accepted the package. Law

enforcement officers then searched Hernandez's residence but failed to find any

additional drugs.

The government charged Hernandez in a one-count indictment for the

possession of cocaine while serving probation. At the time of his federal arrest,

Hernandez had been on state probation for approximately two months for drug

possession. Hernandez moved to suppress the cocaine seized from the Federal

Express package. Hernandez argued that the law enforcement's search of the open

package exceeded the search of the Federal Express employees. The district court

denied Hernandez' motion to suppress.

After the district court denied his motion to suppress, Hernandez pleaded guilty

pursuant to a plea agreement. The plea agreement stipulated to a base offense level

Appellate Case: 03-3766 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/14/2004 Entry ID: 1787839 
-3-

of 18 based on a drug quantity of between 100 and 200 grams of a mixture containing

cocaine. The district court sentenced Hernandez to twenty-four months of

imprisonment and a five-year term of supervised release. 

Hernandez argues that the district court erred in not holding an evidentiary

hearing to uncover the facts surrounding the Federal Express' search of the package.

Our precedent does not require the district court to hold an evidentiary hearing on a

motion to suppress where the facts are not in dispute. United States v. Mims, 812

F.2d 1068, 1073-74 (8th Cir. 1987) (holding that "[w]hen a motion to suppress is

filed, '[e]videntiary hearings need not be set as a matter of course, but if the moving

papers are sufficiently definite, specific, detailed, and nonconjectural to enable the

court to conclude that contested issues of fact going to the validity of the search are

in question, an evidentiary hearing is required.'" (internal citations and quotations

omitted). In his motion to suppress, Hernandez did not raise any factual issues, nor

did Hernandez request a hearing. Thus, the district court did not err. 

Hernandez next argues that the district court erred in determining that the law

enforcement's search did not exceed the private search conducted by Federal Express

employees. We review the district court's denial of a motion to suppress de novo,

with the underlying factual determinations reviewed for clear error. United States v.

Walker, 324 F.3d 1032, 1036 (8th Cir. 2003). 

The Fourth Amendment "is wholly inapplicable to a search or seizure, even an

unreasonable one, effected by a private individual not acting as an agent of the

Government or with the participation or knowledge of any government official."

United States v. Jacobsen, 466 U.S. 109, 113 (1984) (internal citations and quotations

omitted). "Because a private search frustrates . . . [a legitimate] expectation [of

privacy], . . . an ensuing police intrusion that stays within the limits of the private

search is not a search for Fourth Amendment purposes." United States v. Miller, 152

F.3d 813, 815 (8th Cir. 1998) (internal citations omitted). 

Appellate Case: 03-3766 Page: 3 Date Filed: 07/14/2004 Entry ID: 1787839 
-4-

No facts exist to show that the law enforcement's search of the package

exceeded the scope of the private search conducted by Federal Express employees.

The district court did not err in denying Hernandez's motion to suppress the cocaine

in the package.

AFFIRMED.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 03-3766 Page: 4 Date Filed: 07/14/2004 Entry ID: 1787839