Dog Sniff of UPS Package Removed from Conveyor Belt is Neither Search nor Seizure

In September, the Minnesota Supreme Court decided in State v. Eichers that the removal of a package from a conveyor belt at a UPS mailroom, and the subsequent dog sniff of that package, constituted neither search nor seizure under the United States and Minnesota Constitutions.

In the case, an airport police narcotics investigator removed a package from a conveyor belt at a UPS Parcel Sorting Station at the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport. The officer placed the package on the floor and then subjected the package to a dog sniff. The dog alerted to the presence of drugs and the package was found to contain cocaine and methamphetamine.

In regards to the seizure, the Court believed that Eichers had failed to establish any meaningful interference with a possessory interest he had in the package, in that there was no delay in timely delivery and there was no interference in UPS maintaining custody of the package in this initial removal of the package from the conveyor belt to the floor. The Court concluded that removing the package from the conveyor belt for the purpose of a dog sniff was not a seizure under either the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution or Article I, Section 10, of the Minnesota Constitution.

In regards to the search, the Court ruled that Eichers expectation of privacy in a mailroom, even one that is privately owned, does not correlate with the expectation of privacy one might have in their own home. The Court held that a dog sniff of a mailed package, like a dog sniff of luggage in a public place, reveals only contraband, and does not compromise any legitimate privacy interest and is therefore not a search for purposes of the Fourth Amendment.

The Court further found the dog sniff to not be a search under the Minnesota Constitution, and also declined to extend a requirement that officer’s have reasonable, articulable suspicion before undertaking a dog sniff, as is seen in other Minnesota cases. The Court discussed cases requiring reasonable suspicion before performing a dog sniff where residences and storage units were involved and found the sniff of a package to be a distinguishable situation.

The opinion fails to mention State v. Weigand, which, though not finding a dog sniff of an automobile to be a search, did find that reasonable suspicion of drug activity was necessary before performing a dog sniff of a stopped automobile. Unfortunately, the same protection will not be afforded to mailed packages at this time.

If you or someone you know has a search or seizure related issue or has been charged with a crime of any type, call Minneapolis – St. Paul criminal defense attorney John J. Leunig for a free phone consultation at (952) 540-6800.