United States v. Beasley, Case No. 13-10112-01-12-JTM

• Decision Date: 13 April 2016
• Docket Number: Case No. 13-10112-01-12-JTM
• Citation: 180 F.Supp.3d 836
• Parties: United States of America, Plaintiff, v. Gerald Beasley, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Kansas

180 F.Supp.3d 836

United States of America, Plaintiff,

v.Gerald Beasley, et al., Defendants.

Case No. 13-10112-01-12-JTM

United States District Court, D. Kansas.

Signed April 13, 2016

Debra L. Barnett, Office of United States Attorney, Wichita, KS, for Plaintiff.

David J. Freund, Office of Federal Public Defender, Wichita, KS, for Defendant.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

J. THOMAS MARTEN, JUDGE

By a separate Order (Dkt. 390), the court addressed numerous motions advanced by the defendants in this prosecution for conspiracy, drug trafficking, and money laundering. The present Order addresses the remaining suppression motions advanced by three of the defendants.¹

Antoine Beasley has moved (Dkt. 259) to suppress the results of the search of a USPS package that was conducted pursuant to a warrant. Gerald Beasley has moved (Dkt. 274) to suppress evidence gained following the June 12, 2013 stop of his Lincoln Navigator. This stop and search was conducted pursuant to a warrant, and was part of a series of warrants executed that day, culminating from the government's investigation of an alleged drug and money laundering conspiracy among Beasley family members. Terry Beasley has moved (Dkt. 250) to suppress evidence obtained from his vehicle a few days earlier, after officers conducting surveillance concluded that he was attempting to remove evidence of criminal activity from a Wichita storage facility.

Antoine Beasley's Motion to Suppress

On February 13, 2013, United States Postal Inspector Justin Lewis was working at the Postal Processing and Distribution Center in Wichita, Kansas, when he noticed an Express Mail package. The package had been mailed for overnight delivery from Aurora, Colorado, an area known for the production of marijuana. The package had a hand written label, and was heavily taped at the seams. Lewis also determined that the recipient of the package, Mich McNeal, 655 N. Estelle in Wichita, was not a person associated with the receiving address.

The package also indicated that the sender, Tracey Williams, resided at an address in Denver, Colorado. The sender had waived signature upon delivery. Inspector Lewis contacted the resident of the Denver address, who stated he had no knowledge of a Tracey Williams. The resident also stated he had not sent any package to Wichita, and had not given anyone permission to use his Denver address.

Lewis then contacted Wichita Police Detective Bryan Martin, who had his drug dog Kilo sniff the outside of the package. The dog alerted, and law enforcement officers obtained a search warrant for the package.

The Supreme Court has held that sealed packages in the mail are “free from inspection by postal authorities, except in a manner provided by the Fourth Amendment.” United States v. Leeuwen , 397 U.S. 249, 250, 90 S.Ct. 1029, 25 L.Ed.2d 282 (1970) (involving the detention of a postal package based on reasonable suspicion). This court has held that postal inspectors may detain a package to conduct an investigation if they have a reasonable and articulable suspicion that it contains contraband or evidence of illegal activity. United States v. Hill , 701 F.Supp. 1522, 1527–28 (D.Kan.1988).

In the present motion, defendant Antoine Beasley notes that many packages are heavily taped, and are sent with similar handwritten labels. In addition, he argues, the source of a particular package is “is irrelevant,” citing the decision of the Tenth Circuit in United States v. Williams , 271 F.3d 1262, 1270 (10th Cir.2001).

The court finds that Inspector Lewis had a reasonable suspicion to temporarily hold the package. The court notes that Williams involved a traffic stop, and the associated detention of the defendant's person. The present case, of course, involves the temporary detention of a mailed package which was not in Antoine Beasley's possession, and was not even addressed to him. The temporary detention thus reflects a far less intrusive effect on the defendant's privacy interests. Second, the Williams court did not indicate that the source of a package (or vehicle) is irrelevant. It simply held that such information by itself cannot justify a traffic stop. See Williams , 271 F.3d at 1270 (“Standing alone, a vehicle that hails from a purported known drug source area is, at best, a weak factor in finding suspicion in criminal activity”).

In reviewing the seizure of the Express Mail package, the court does not look at each facet of the evidence in isolation. Rather, the court “must look at the ‘totality of the circumstances' of each case to see whether the detaining officer has a ‘particularized and objective basis' for suspecting legal wrongdoing.” United States v. Arvizu , 534 U.S. 266, 273, 122 S.Ct. 744, 151 L.Ed.2d 740 (2002). In evaluating the totality of the circumstances, the court may not consider each factor in isolation. See id. at 274, 122 S.Ct. 744 (rejecting evaluation of the listed factors in isolation from each other as a type of “divide-and-conquer analysis”). Reasonable suspicion may exist even if each factor, standing alone, is susceptible to an innocent explanation. United States v. Hernandez , 313 F.3d 1206, 1210 (9th Cir.2002). “A combination of seemingly independent innocent factors may create a reasonable suspicion justifying detention for a dog sniff if the factors substantially reflect elements of a suspicious profile.” United States v. Scarborough , 128 F.3d 1373 (10th Cir.1997).

Courts presented with similar facts have routinely held that reasonable suspicion existed as to a mailed package. See, e.g., United States v. Ramirez , 342 F.3d 1210, 1211–12 (10th Cir.2003) (reasonable suspicion existed to detain Express Mail packages with handwritten labels sent to Wyoming from Montebello, California, “a known source area for methamphetamine distribution to Wyoming,” which included a “non-existent return address”); United States v. Huerta , 655 F.3d 806 (8th Cir.2011) (Express Mail package with handwritten label from drug source state, name of sender unrelated to return address, telephone number listed for sender disconnected day after package was mailed, number in return address was scratched out, mailing zip code different than zip code on return address, destination address a hotel, and heavily taped); United States v. Duncan , 2015 WL 10373174, at*5 (W.D.Mo.2016) (Express Mail package with signature waiver, “careful taping of all the seams,” and fictitious return address);² United States v. Hill , 701 F.Supp. 1522, 1528–29 (D.Kan.1988) (package sent from Los Angeles, “a source city for drugs” to Kansas City, “a known recipient city,” handwritten label, and, “of special import,” a false return addressee).

Standing alone, the fact that the Express Mail package in the present case was sent from Colorado might not support a temporary detention of the package. The same is true if the court were to look only at the fact the package was heavily taped. But, of course, the court must look to the evidence as a whole. When all of these factors are combined the handwritten labels, the overnight delivery, and most importantly, the apparently false names used for sender and recipient, Inspector Lewis had reasonable suspicion for delaying the package in order to arrange for a K-9 sniff.

The court further finds that the evidence presented by affidavit in support of the warrant establishes the general reliability of the dog sniff in the present case. See Florida v. Harris , ––– U.S. ––––, 133 S.Ct. 1050, 185 L.Ed.2d 61 (2013). Detective Martin had been employed by the Wichita Police Department for nearly 22 years. Currently assigned to the Special Investigations Bureau, Undercover Narcotics Section, he has attended several schools dealing with the investigation and detection of narcotics presented by the Kansas Bureau of Investigations, Drug Enforcement Administration and the Wichita Police Department. He has been trained in the recognition, cultivation, processing, packaging, sale and distribution of narcotics including concealment techniques of controlled substances. In November of 2000, Detective Martin attended the Advanced Criminal Interdiction School (Operation Pipeline) which discussed concealment techniques and characteristics and indicators of narcotics traffickers. In February of 2000, Detective Martin attended Operation Jetway which discussed narcotic trafficking through utilization of bus, train, aircraft and postal service. Kilo is Detective Martin's third K-9.³ Kilo was purchased through Hill Country Canine in San Antonio, Texas. Detective Martin completed a 10-week training course with Kilo, who is currently certified in narcotic detection and handler protection. K-9 Kilo is trained to locate and indicate to the following narcotic odors: marijuana, methamphetamine, cocaine, crack cocaine and heroin. K-9 Kilo is currently certified through the Kansas Highway Patrol.

The court finds that the warrant issued by the Magistrate Judge was properly issued on probable cause, as reflected in the information obtained by Detective Martin and Inspector Lewis.

Gerald Beasley's Motion to Suppress

Law enforcement officers executed numerous search warrants across the City of Wichita on June 12, 2013, seeking evidence relating to the drug trafficking and money laundering charges set forth in the Superseding Indictment. As a part of this sweep, between 8:45 and 8:50 a.m., Officer Robert G. Bachman stopped a Lincoln Navigator driven by Gerald Beasley. As a result of their prior investigations, law enforcement officers had a search warrant for the Navigator. They did not have an arrest warrant for Beasley.

Beasley lived in Officer Bachman's patrol area at 1122 N. Piatt, and, according to the defendant's motion, Officer Bachman has indicated that Beasley was respectful and cooperative in their prior meetings.

ATF agents waited for Beasley to leave the residence. When he did, they notified Officer Bachman to stop him at another location, as they prepared to search the residence.

Bachman stopped the...