Court Opinion

ID: 9492000
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 14:29:50.890847+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:55:03.538907
License: Public Domain

HANSEN, Circuit Judge,
dissenting.
I believe the facts, when viewed as a whole, support the existence of a reasonable, articulable suspicion. Therefore, I respectfully dissent.
As a threshold matter, it may be prudent to identify the issues on which I believe the court and I agree. The mere act of subjecting the postal package to a drug sniffing dog did not constitute an illegal search or seizure in this case. See United States v. Place, 462 U.S. 696, 707, 103 S.Ct. 2637, 77 L.Ed.2d 110 (1983); United States v. Riley, 927 F.2d 1045, 1048 n. 4 (8th Cir.1991) (noting that “exposing [a defendant’s] checked baggage to a trained sniffing dog may be no seizure at all”). But for the alleged lack of reasonable suspicion to detain the package, the dog sniff, the warrant application, and the warrant execution were all otherwise righteous and legal. Thus, the sole difference between my conclusion and that of the court is whether Inspector Vajgert possessed a reasonable, articulable suspicion for removing the package from the stream of mail. As I apply the relevant law to the facts, I believe that he did.
This court has long recognized “that a package in the mail may be detained on the basis of reasonable suspicion to believe it contains contraband pending further investigation directed toward establishing probable cause which will support issuance of a search warrant.” Garmon v. Foust, 741 F.2d 1069, 1072 (8th Cir.1984) (citation omitted). Although we decide the ultimate issue of reasonable suspicion de novo, in making this decision, “ ‘[w]e look to the totality of the circumstances, in light of the officer’s experience.’ ” United States v. Carrate, 122 F.3d 666, 668 (8th Cir.1997) (emphasis added) (quoting United States v. Dodson, 109 F.3d 486, 488 (8th Cir.1997)).
The court concludes that the factors relied on by Inspector Vajgert do not add up to reasonable suspicion. Conspicuously missing from the court’s calculus, however, is any credit for Inspector Vajgert’s experience. In my view, the court takes the factors out of context when it fails to credit that experience. We should assess the existence of a reasonable suspicion in light of the inspector’s experience, not ours. Inspector Vajgert has eight years of experience in enforcing federal mail and drug laws. He has special training in investigating the use of the Express Mail service for narcotics trafficking. This experience and training should count for something. “[C]ircumstances which appear innocent to the outside observer may suggest criminal activity to experienced law enforcement personnel, and in determining whether reasonable suspicion exists, law enforcement authorities may assess these circumstances in light of them experience.” United States v. Dennis, 115 F.3d 524, 533 (7th Cir.1997). See also United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U.S. 873, 885, 95 S.Ct. 2574, 45 L.Ed.2d 607 (1975) (stating that a law enforcement officer “is entitled to assess the facts in light of his experience”).
I believe the instant case is, at its essence, indistinguishable from Dennis. In Dennis, a postal inspector detained a package and subjected it to a drug sniff “because it possessed several characteristics which met the U.S. Postal Service’s narcotics package profile,” and based on the inspector’s experience “were consistent with a package containing narcotics.” Dennis, 115 F.3d at 531. In a thorough and well-reasoned opinion, Judge Harling-ton Wood, Jr., held that “the confluence of ... factors in a single package when appraised by the postal inspector, an experienced narcotics investigator, amounted to reasonable suspicion that the Express Mail package may have contained contraband and justified the investigatory detention.” Id. at 533.
I also wish to address briefly the factors Inspector Vajgert relied upon in deciding to detain the package. The package labels *607were handwritten, and the package was addressed from one individual to another individual, both at the same address. I concede this could reflect purely innocent conduct. But a trained postal inspector could reasonably conclude otherwise. This was not an ordinary mail package, but rather an Express Mail package. The Express Mail service is a costlier method of shipping, and a method seldom used for personal correspondence. See Dennis, 115 F.3d at 532 (discussing postal inspector’s testimony that “only about five percent of all Express Mail is personal correspondence”). Finally, as the court concedes, the package originated from a narcotics source city and state. We have, on many occasions, credited this factor on the reasonable suspicion side of the ledger when viewed in the presence of other factors, including a law enforcement officer’s experience and training in such matters. See, e.g., United States v. Johnson, 64 F.3d 1120, 1125 (8th Cir.1995) (noting that the officers involved “were aware through their experience that Chicago is a source city for drugs”), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 1139, 116 S.Ct. 971, 133 L.Ed.2d 891 (1996).
To be sure, the record in this case would probably have been stronger if the underlying data supporting the creation of the Postal Service’s Express Mail narcotics package profile had been introduced and the Inspector’s testimony about his suspicions, training, and experience heard live. Nonetheless, under the totality of the circumstances, I would hold that the removal of the package from the stream of mail for a drug dog sniff did not violate the Fourth Amendment. Consequently, I would affirm the district court’s judgment in this case.