State v. Eichers

• Decision Date: 10 September 2014
• Docket Number: No. A13–0121.,A13–0121.
• Citation: 853 N.W.2d 114
• Parties: STATE of Minnesota, Respondent, v. Corey Joel EICHERS, Appellant.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

853 N.W.2d 114

STATE of Minnesota, Respondent

v.Corey Joel EICHERS, Appellant.

No. A13–0121.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

Sept. 10, 2014.

Lori Swanson, Attorney General, Saint Paul, Minnesota; and Janelle P. Kendall, Stearns County Attorney, Carl Ole Tvedten, Assistant County Attorney, Saint Cloud, MN, for respondent.

Cathryn Middlebrook, Chief Appellate Public Defender, Bridget K. Sabo, Assistant State Public Defender, Saint Paul, MN; and Ryan M. Schultz, Benjamin C. Linden, Special Assistant State Public Defenders, Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi L.L.P., Minneapolis, MN, for appellant.

Cort C. Holten, Jeffrey D. Bores, Chestnut Cambronne P.A., Minneapolis, MN, for amicus curiae Minnesota Police and Peace Officers Association Legal Defense Fund.

OPINION

ANDERSON, Justice.

This case presents the questions of whether, for purposes of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 10, of the Minnesota Constitution, the movement of a package from a conveyor belt to the floor at an airport mail facility for purposes of a dog sniff constitutes a seizure; whether a dog sniff of such a package constitutes a search; and whether, if these actions constituted a seizure or a search, the seizure or search was reasonable.

Appellant Corey Joel Eichers, charged with two counts of a first-degree controlled substance crime, moved to suppress evidence of a package containing cocaine and methamphetamine that was opened by investigators in a UPS mail area following a positive drug alert by a trained narcotics-detection dog. Eichers argued that the detention of the package in the mail area, prior to the positive dog sniff, was an unreasonable seizure, and that the dog sniff was an unreasonable search of the package. The Stearns County District Court denied Eichers's motion, concluding that the initial detention and dog sniff of the package did not constitute a search or seizure.

The court of appeals affirmed the denial of Eichers's suppression motion, but on other grounds. State v. Eichers, 840 N.W.2d 210, 223 (Minn.App.2013). In a divided decision, the court of appeals concluded that there was both a search and a seizure, but that the investigators had reasonable, articulable suspicion for both. Id. at 218–23. Eichers now appeals, arguing that the package was both seized and searched without a reasonable, articulable suspicion of criminal activity.

On September 23, 2011, at 6:10 a.m., Airport Police Narcotics Investigator Mark Meyer observed a package on a conveyor belt at the UPS Parcel Sorting Station at the Minneapolis–Saint Paul International Airport. Investigator Meyer removed the package from the conveyor belt to examine the air bill. The package was sent by Alec Bublitz from a UPS store in Phoenix, Arizona, and it was addressed to “Cory” Eichers in Avon, Minnesota. Investigator Meyer was suspicious of the package because 1) Phoenix was known to be a source city for narcotics, and Investigator Meyer had found narcotics shipped by UPS from Phoenix many times in the past; 2) the package was sent by air service, which Investigator Meyer indicated was a preferred shipment method for narcotics because of the fast delivery time; and 3) the package appeared to be shipped from one individual to another, as opposed to shipment to or from a business, which was unusual for air service because of the higher cost. Investigator Meyer reported that “[a]ll of these characteristics are consistent with previous packages that [he] ha[d] found to contain illegal substances.”

Because Investigator Meyer found these characteristics to be suspicious, he placed the package on the floor along with 20–25 other packages. He then brought a trained narcotics-detection dog into the area and commanded the dog to “seek dope.” The dog alerted to the package addressed to Eichers, indicating an odor of narcotics emanating from that package. Based in large part on the dog's alert, Investigator Meyer obtained a warrant authorizing him to open and search the package. Upon opening the package, Investigator Meyer found 225.1 grams of cocaine and 29.6 grams of methamphetamine concealed in a blue plastic coffee container full of coffee grounds.

Later that day, Investigator Meyer arranged for law enforcement officers in Stearns County to make a controlled delivery of the package to Eichers. When investigators attempted to deliver the package at Eichers's residence that afternoon, they found no one there. Following a second failed delivery attempt three days later, a Stearns County Sheriff's Deputy called the phone number listed on the package to arrange delivery. Eichers returned the call and said that he had been expecting a package. A member of the Central Minnesota Drug and Gang Task Force delivered the package to Eichers while two investigators watched. The investigators saw Eichers walk out of his residence with the package and put the package in his vehicle, at which point they placed him under arrest. After waiving his Miranda rights, Eichers stated that he was buying and reselling drugs to make money and had previously received approximately five drug packages through the mail.

Eichers was charged with two counts of a first-degree controlled substance crime. Prior to his trial, Eichers moved to suppress evidence of the contents of the package. He contended that the initial detention of the package was a “seizure” and the dog sniff was a “search,” and that because both the seizure and the search were unsupported by reasonable, articulable suspicion, they violated the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and Article I, Section 10, of the Minnesota Constitution. The State conceded that the package likely was seized when it was removed from the conveyor belt and held for a dog sniff. But the State argued that Investigator Meyer had a reasonable, articulable suspicion of criminal activity because of the source city of the package and type of mailing, and because the package was sent person to person. Investigator Meyer indicated that he had learned through his experience and training that these were all common characteristics of a package containing contraband.

The district court concluded that the initial detention of the package for a dog sniff was not supported by a reasonable, articulable suspicion of criminal activity, as Investigator Meyer's test for subjecting the package to a dog sniff “would presumably be met by any package shipped person to person from a border state, coastal state or urban location by air service or some other expedited delivery method.” But the district court concluded that the package was not seized during its initial detention because, following the Eighth Circuit's decision in United States v. Va Lerie, 424 F.3d 694, 707 (8th Cir.2005), “a Fourth Amendment seizure occurs only when it is shown that the detention of the entrusted property: 1) delays a passenger's travel or significantly impacts a passenger's freedom of movement, or 2) delays timely delivery of the property, or 3) deprives the carrier of custody of its property.” Concluding that none of these situations applied, and noting the absence of clear Minnesota precedent on this issue, the district court concluded that the detention was not a seizure and did not require justification by reasonable suspicion. The district court also held, citing United States v. Place, 462 U.S. 696, 103 S.Ct. 2637, 77 L.Ed.2d 110 (1983), that a dog sniff of a package entrusted to a common carrier for air transport was a minimal intrusion on privacy interests, as the privacy of the contents would be preserved unless the package contained contraband. Thus, the district court concluded that the dog sniff was not a search and no reasonable suspicion was required.

The court of appeals affirmed the district court, although on other grounds, in a sharply divided decision. Eichers, 840 N.W.2d at 223. Two judges concluded that a seizure had occurred because Investigator Meyer asserted dominion and control over the package by removing it from the conveyor belt and placing it on the floor, and that a dog sniff of a package is a search that requires a reasonable, articulable suspicion of criminal activity under the Minnesota Constitution. Id. at 218–20. But the court of appeals also concluded that these actions, even if they constituted a search and seizure, violated neither the United States nor Minnesota Constitution because the factors observed by Investigator Meyer supported a reasonable, articulable suspicion that the package might contain contraband. Id. at 220–22. A special concurrence concluded that although reasonable suspicion was present, Investigator Meyer did not need reasonable suspicion because the initial detention and dog sniff were neither a seizure nor a search. Id. at 223–30 (Ross, J., concurring specially). The dissent concluded that there was both a search and a seizure and that Investigator Meyer did not have a reasonable suspicion for either of these actions. Id. at 230–32 (Hudson, J., dissenting).

Eichers appealed, asking us to review whether the initial detention and diversion of the package, and the subsequent dog sniff, violated the prohibitions on unreasonable searches and seizures found in the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and Article I, Section 10, of the Minnesota Constitution.

I.

The first issue raised by Eichers is whether there was an unreasonable seizure of the package, in violation of either the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution or Article I, Section 10, of the Minnesota Constitution. When reviewing a district court's pretrial order on a motion to suppress evidence, the district court's factual findings are reviewed under a clearly erroneous standard. State v. Diede, 795 N.W.2d 836, 849 (Minn.2011). But legal determinations, such as whether there was a seizure and, if so, whether that seizure was unreasonable, are reviewed de novo. State v. Milton, 821 N.W.2d 789, 798 (Minn.2012).

Because the relevant language of the Fourth...