United States v. Outland
| Decision Date | 14 July 1972 |
| Docket Number | Crim. No. 46603. |
| Citation | 345 F. Supp. 1250 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. Leslie Hugh OUTLAND, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Michigan |
Ralph Guy, Jr., U. S. Atty., by Robert P. Hurlbert, Asst. U. S. Atty., for plaintiff.
Richard M. Lustig, Southfield, Mich., Atty. for defendant.
The defendant herein, who has been indicted on a two-count indictment charging him with violation of § 952(a), Title 21 and § 841(a) (1), Title 21 U.S. C., to-wit: importation and possession of marijuana, has moved the Court to suppress all evidence obtained by the use of two search warrants to search 251 E. Oakridge, Ferndale, Michigan, and 661 W. Lewiston, Ferndale, Michigan. The defendant contends that the evidence taken from the two residences were taken unlawfully in that the search warrants did not comply with the requirements of the Fourth Amendment. The defendant also claims, by way of an amended brief, that the manner of obtaining and executing the warrants violated the defendant's due process rights.
The two packages in question, en route to the two addresses set forth above, were taken from the ordinary course of mail by an employee of the International Mail Division for purposes of a test to determine the contents of the packages. The packages were later delivered to the two addresses in question so that search warrants could be obtained to search the premises, to which the packages were addressed.
The defendant asserts that the affidavits in support of the two search warrants do not present facts and circumstances upon which a magistrate could find probable cause to believe the items sought were on the premises to be searched. The government held the packages for 85 days after discovery of the alleged marijuana, then requested two search warrants—one for each of the above addresses—and delivered the packages to the addresses prior to executing the warrants. The packages were delivered to the residences after 4:30 on a Friday afternoon when there was no magistrate available. The defendant was not arraigned until Monday. During the intervening period of incarceration, a statement was taken from the defendant, as well as handwriting and other materials necessary to hold the defendant for an indictment.
The alleged marijuana was discovered when the packages were subjected to customs inspection upon their arrival in Detroit from Germany. The Government urges, on the authority of United States v. Beckley, 335 F.2d 86, 88 (6th Cir. 1964), that the "standards applicable to mail matter moving entirely within the country are not applicable to mail matter coming from outside the country at least where it appears that a customs determination must be made." Admittedly, the Fourth Amendment standards for border searches are looser than those for situations where the property searched never leaves the country. But the time period during which the packages were held prior to their delivery and the subsequent search in the case at hand was so unreasonable as to render the search illegal. Assuming the search by customs and postal authorities was legal because of the less stringent Fourth Amendment standards in such circumstances, the subsequent search of the addressees' premises and the accompanying arrest were unreasonable because the delay in delivering the packages was so extreme. In the view of the Court, such unreasonableness tainted the entire investigation.1 For even if nobody's constitutional rights were violated as a result of the so-called "border search," the defendant's Fourth Amendment rights were certainly violated by the subsequent events—as will be set forth below. It must be emphasized at this point that the principles applicable to the necessity of probable cause and search warrants for inspection of imports by mail are not necessarily the same as the more clearly defined principles applicable to customs inspections of vehicles and of the belongings and effects of persons entering the country.2 (The case law dealing with the requirements of probable cause and search warrants for inspection of imports by mail is virtually non-existent.)
An agent of the Bureau of Customs obtained the search warrants from a magistrate by swearing that the packages, then in the hands of the Postal Inspector in Detroit, would be delivered to the addresses in question the following day. As noted previously, tests were performed on the packages about three months before the warrants were sought in order to determine the contents of the packages. It is not clear where the packages were kept for the intervening three months, nor is it clear that the packages which were finally mailed to the premises to be searched were in fact the packages originally thought to be containing the marijuana. Certainly the affidavits in support of the warrants does not disclose what happened to the packages during the three month period. The affidavits upon which the search warrants issued simply swore that it was expected that the packages containing the marijuana would be on the premises to be searched the following day.
Probable cause for the issuance of a search warrant usually can be shown only by facts and circumstances which indicate with particularity that a crime is being committed on the premises or that the objects sought are upon the premises. The magistrate should be able to conclude that there is a substantial indication that the objects sought by the warrant were probably present upon the property to be searched. Rugendorf v. United States, 376 U.S. 528, 533, 84 S.Ct. 825, 11 L.Ed.2d 887 (1964). The defendant contends that there must be some showing of present criminal activity, or the presence of contraband upon the premises in order to establish probable cause for a search warrant. There is authority that at least an observation of the packages being delivered or going into the buildings for which the search warrant is authorized should be required. United States v. Old Dominion Warehouse, Inc., 10 F.2d 736 (2nd Cir. 1936). But the Court herein does not need to consider whether the items to be searched for must always be present at the premises to be searched at the time that the warrant is issued. For the Government has violated the strictures of the Fourth Amendment absent such a finding.
It is of some significance that the Government, presently possessing the packages, was able to obtain warrants to search for them at other addresses. Since the Government had been in possession of the packages for almost three months, it is unable to claim that it merely followed the packages to their respective destinations after discovering the nature of their contents. Obviously, the Government through the Bureau of Customs, was communicating with the Postal Inspector rather than the regular postal delivery personnel to see that the packages were delivered at a point considerably removed in time from the point at which there was a purported determination of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Feldman
...deliveries of contraband were sanctioned also in Galvez, Beal, Coughlin, Glen, Schatz, Garcia, and Marcil. United States v. Outland, 345 F.Supp. 1250 (E.D.Mich.1972), condemned the warrantless detention of marihuana because the delay in delivery was "so unreasonable as to render it illegal"......
- United States v. Small, Crim. No. 72-195.
-
United States v. Outland
...suppression of evidence seized under two search warrants. The facts of the case are detailed in the District Court's opinion. 345 F.Supp. 1250 (E.D.Mich. 1972). For the herein stated reasons, we reverse and remand for an evidentiary The District Court suppressed the evidence for two reasons......