United States v. Johnlouis
| Decision Date | 11 August 2022 |
| Docket Number | 21-30085 |
| Citation | 44 F.4th 331 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Alfonzo JOHNLOUIS, Defendant—Appellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Cristina Walker, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney's Office, Western District of Louisiana, Shreveport, LA, Camille Ann Domingue, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney's Office, Western District of Louisiana, Lafayette, LA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Frank Alton Granger, Lake Charles, LA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before Barksdale, Stewart, and Dennis, Circuit Judges.
This case presents a novel question involving two provisions within the United States Constitution: the United States Postal Service and the Fourth Amendment.1 Alfonzo Johnlouis moved to suppress narcotics evidence that the Government seized after a letter carrier's thumb slipped through a hole in a package, initiating an allegedly illegal search. According to Johnlouis, the Fourth Amendment per se applies to letter carriers because they are government actors subject to its warrant requirement. According to the Government, this letter carrier was not a government actor to whom the Fourth Amendment applies, and her inspection of the package did not fall within its purview. The district court agreed with the Government and denied Johnlouis's motion. For the following reasons, we AFFIRM.
On November 3, 2017, United States Postal Service ("USPS") letter carrier Jasia Girard was delivering mail in Lafayette, Louisiana. As she was picking up a package for delivery to 109 Hogan Drive, her thumb slipped through a preexisting hole. After feeling a "plastic bag" containing "little balls" she thought to be marijuana, Girard removed her thumb and decided she would not deliver the package because she did not feel comfortable leaving it "with all those kids around there." She then looked through the hole and observed what appeared to be "aluminum pans with a little Ziploc bag." At this point, Girard lifted a previously torn flap of the package to better assess what was inside and saw hard white rocks. Upon researching "hard white rock substance" on the internet with her phone, she determined that these rocks were probably methamphetamine.
According to Girard, she was "freaked out" and felt morally obligated not to deliver the package on account of the children in the area as well as her experience with a relative's methamphetamine addiction. Instead of leaving it with her supervisor or contacting the Postal Inspection Service—USPS's law enforcement arm—Girard brought this package and two others addressed to 109 Hogan Drive to the property manager, Billie Love.2 She informed Love that she believed the packages contained methamphetamine and suggested that Love may want to call the police. Girard then left but was later contacted by Special Agent Douglas Herman of the Federal Bureau of Investigation to whom she relayed what had happened. As a letter carrier, she received no law enforcement training, and aside from the instant incident, she had never interacted with law enforcement during her employment with USPS.
Lafayette police officer Brandon Lemelle responded to Love's call and met with her at the property manager's office. Love relayed to Lemelle what Girard had told her about the discovery of the suspected methamphetamine. Lemelle also spoke with Herman, who arrived five to ten minutes after him and informed Lemelle that 109 Hogan Drive was a suspected methamphetamine stash house. A K-9 officer sniffed the three packages and "hit," leading Lemelle to believe that they contained narcotics and that he had probable cause for a search warrant that a state judge approved. Execution of the search warrant uncovered a combined eighteen pounds of methamphetamine. In an interview with officers, the owner of the residence stated that Alfonzo Johnlouis had informed her the packages would arrive at her address.
Johnlouis was indicted for (1) conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine, and (2) attempted possession of a controlled substance with intent to distribute. He subsequently filed a motion to suppress, arguing that the narcotics evidence had been seized in violation of the Fourth Amendment following an illegal search of a parcel by a USPS letter carrier. A magistrate judge conducted an evidentiary hearing at which the relevant testimony was adduced.
Adopting the magistrate judge's report and recommendation, the district court denied Johnlouis's motion. It determined that despite her position as a USPS letter carrier, Girard did not carry out law enforcement action within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment; as such, it did not apply to her inspection of the package and the contents were not subject to suppression. In the alternative, the district court held that even if Girard did carry out law enforcement action within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment, such action did not rise to the level of misconduct warranting application of the exclusionary rule. Next, it determined that Lemelle's subsequent search of the package pursuant to a warrant was done in good faith and that the contents would have inevitably been discovered. Finally, the district court reasoned that Herman's statement to Lemelle that 109 Hogan Drive was a suspected stash house provided independent probable cause for the search of the package after the K-9 officer hit on it.
Johnlouis ultimately pled guilty to the conspiracy count, and the attempt count was dismissed pursuant to the terms of his plea agreement. The district court sentenced him within the guidelines range to 120 months of imprisonment, followed by five years of supervised release. Johnlouis reserved his right to appeal the denial of his motion to suppress.
On appeal from a denial of a motion to suppress evidence, this court reviews "the district court's findings of fact for clear error and its conclusions of law de novo." United States v. Lopez-Moreno , 420 F.3d 420, 429 (5th Cir. 2005). We may affirm the ruling "on any basis established by the record," United States v. Ibarra-Sanchez , 199 F.3d 753, 758 (5th Cir. 1999), and should do so "if there is any reasonable view of the evidence to support it." United States v. Michelletti , 13 F.3d 838, 841 (5th Cir. 1994) (en banc) (citations omitted).
The threshold question in this case is whether the Fourth Amendment applies to Girard, a USPS letter carrier. This court must decide whether she was a government actor to whom the Fourth Amendment applies at the time she peered into the hole and lifted the flap of the package at 109 Hogan Drive.3 Although it is evident that Girard was an employee of the federal government, the parties dispute whether this fact alone has Fourth Amendment implications.
The Fourth Amendment protects the "right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures." U.S. CONST. amend. IV. "[O]fficial intrusion into that private sphere generally qualifies as a search and requires a warrant supported by probable cause."
Carpenter v. United States , ––– U.S. ––––, 138 S. Ct. 2206, 2213, 201 L.Ed.2d 507 (2018). "Letters and other sealed packages are in the general class of effects in which the public at large has a legitimate expectation of privacy; warrantless searches of such effects are presumptively unreasonable." United States v. Jacobsen , 466 U.S. 109, 114, 104 S.Ct. 1652, 80 L.Ed.2d 85 (1984).
Federal courts have "consistently construed [the Fourth Amendment] as proscribing only governmental action; it is wholly inapplicable ‘to a search or seizure, even an unreasonable one, effected by a private individual not acting as an agent of the [g]overnment or with the participation or knowledge of any governmental official.’ " Id. at 113, 104 S.Ct. 1652 (quoting Walter v. United States , 447 U.S. 649, 662, 100 S.Ct. 2395, 65 L.Ed.2d 410 (1980) (Blackmun, J., dissenting)). "[T]he arrival of police on the scene to confirm the presence of contraband and to determine what to do with it does not convert [a] private search into a government search subject to the Fourth Amendment." United States v. Villarreal , 963 F.2d 770, 774 (5th Cir. 1992) (quoting Illinois v. Andreas , 463 U.S. 765, 769 n.2, 103 S.Ct. 3319, 77 L.Ed.2d 1003 (1983) ).
Notably, this court's precedents assessing the constitutionality of searches by USPS employees have involved searches by members of the Postal Inspection Service, not letter carriers. See, e.g., United States v. Osunegbu , 822 F.2d 472, 474–75, 477–80 (5th Cir. 1987) ; United States v. King , 517 F.2d 350, 351–55 (5th Cir. 1975) ; see generally 39 C.F.R. § 233.1(a) (). However, neither party cites any authority discussing whether a person falls within the ambit of the Fourth Amendment merely by dint of their being a USPS employee. And like the district court, we are "not aware of any case finding that suppression is justified based upon the acts of a letter carrier without any intervening act by a postal inspector or other law enforcement officer[.]"
Moreover, the cases cited by the parties in support of their arguments do not offer a definitive answer. United States v. Van Leeuwen and Ex parte Jackson , for instance, place within the scope of the Fourth Amendment searches conducted by "postal authorities" and "officials connected with the postal service," respectively. 397 U.S. 249, 251, 90 S.Ct. 1029, 25 L.Ed.2d 282 (1970) ; 96 U.S. 727, 733, 24 L.Ed. 877 (1877). Yet neither explores the scope of those terms nor casts any light on whether a letter carrier qualifies as an "authority" or "official." Indeed, Van Leeuwen —despite containing the above language that the district court, in any event, found to be dicta—is not a case about USPS employees at all; a USPS...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Stramaski v. Lawley
... ... Mark LAWLEY, Individually, DefendantAppellant. No. 20-20607 United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit. FILED August 11, 2022 Adam S. Greenfield, Law Office of ... ...
-
United States v. Felton
...United States v. Johnlouis, 44 F.4th 331, 337 (5th Cir. 2022), cert. denied, 143 S.Ct. 834 (2023). We are bound by the determination in Johnlouis that letter carrier was not acting as an agent of the government when she inspected the package at issue.[1] Thus, the district court did not err......