Warrantless search of mailed package was not justified
In the case of Robey v. Superior Court, the California Supreme Court discussed an incident in which the police claimed they had exigent circumstances to search a package containing marijuana.
March 22, 2014
Under the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution, a warrantless search is considered unreasonable unless the situation is covered by one of a number of exceptions to the law. One of those exceptions is related to "exigent circumstances"--a situation which, by its nature, requires immediate action.In the case of Robey v. Superior Court, the California Supreme Court discussed an incident in which the police claimed they had exigent circumstances to search a package containing marijuana . . . but the court disagreed.
A shipping package . . . and "that" smell
A shipping company employee contacted the Santa Maria Police Department reporting a package dropped off that allegedly smelled of marijuana. Upon arriving, the officer seized the unopened and sealed box and took it to the police station. At the station, the officers opened the package and found 444 grams of marijuana.
Three days later, when the defendant returned to the store inquiring about his package, police were called and they arrested him. The defendant was charged with possession of marijuana for sale and with the transportation of marijuana.
The defendant moved to suppress the evidence found in the package. The Superior Court denied his motion, arguing that exigent circumstances justified the seizure and subsequent search, based on the mobility of the mailed package. The defendant appealed.
Did the mobility of the package justify the search?
The California Supreme Court noted that the Fourth Amendment's protections do extend to letters and other sealed packages in shipment. Also, generally, searches conducted without approval by a judge are unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment, subject to only a few exceptions, such as exigent circumstances.
The usual justification used in a warrantless search of an automobile, for example, is not only its continuing mobility, but also the practical difficulties of towing and securing the car and providing for the safety of its occupants while a search warrant is obtained. Here, there was no evidence that the police had any difficulty bringing the package to the police station and securely storing it, where they might have waited for a search warrant to be issued.
While the mobility of the package did constitute exigent circumstances which justified seizing the package without a warrant, the seizure itself ended the package's mobility. At that point, the police should have obtained a search warrant before opening the package.
Therefore, the drug possession evidence seized would be suppressed from the court proceedings.
Fighting drug charges
If you are accused of possession of marijuana with intent to sell, you may be subject to substantial jail time or other penalties. It is important that you seek a criminal defense attorney with experience in fighting these types of charges. An attorney can review how the evidence against you was gathered, ensure your rights were not violated, and work to mitigate the potential consequences.
Article provided by The Law Office of Charles B. Smith
Visit us at www.charlessmithcriminallaw.com