Police pulling packages from mail fails 'sniff test' of Oregon Supreme Court

[Robrites]

The Oregon Supreme Court on Thursday dealt a blow to the practice by Portland police and U.S. postal inspectors of pulling packages from the mail stream to investigate them for drugs or drug money.
It's long been recognized locally and federally that police don't have a right to open private letters or parcels without a warrant, but the ruling makes clear that police acting without a warrant in Oregon also don't have a right to interfere with the mail by doing just about everything short of opening it.
At issue was the case of Max Barnthouse, who was 26 in February 2012 when Portland police and a U.S. postal inspector set aside a package for him at the Portland International Airport postal cargo center.
After identifying the package as suspicious, investigators placed it in a "line up" of six packages. The investigators had a specially trained, drug-sniffing dog walk by the package, and the dog signaled there was something of interest in it, according to a previous court summary of the case.
The investigators also studied the addresses of the sender and the recipient, Barnthouse, before showing up at his Southeast Belmont home with the package and the urgent request to open it and to search Barnthouse's bedroom.
Barnthouse reluctantly consented to both. Police found stacks of cash in the package and a "large quantity" of marijuana, packaging materials and a vacuum sealer in his bedroom -- leading to charges of drug dealing in Multnomah County Circuit Court.
Police said the procedures used in Barnthouse's case were typical. On a given day, they usually pull about 30 to 40 suspicious-looking packages from the postal cargo center and walk a drug dog by them for a "sniff test." The dog is correct about 90 percent of the time, an officer testified. Officers typically end up investigating seven to 14 of the pulled packages a day by using their computer databases to search the names and addresses to see if they're linked to known criminals, according to a previous court summary of the case.
In Barnthouse's case, police said they still would have investigated his package even if the dog hadn't alerted to it. That's because police said there was still plenty that justified their suspicions that the package contained drugs or drug money, according to the Supreme Court summary of the case:

• It was addressed to a pseudonym "Maxi-pad Barnt" -- similar to Barnthouse's name. Police said senders and recipients associated with the drug world often hide their identities behind fictitious names.

• It was sent from a state where medical marijuana isn't legal -- Delaware -- to a state where it is legal and the drug is more prevalent -- Oregon. Authorities say marijuana buyers often send money to Oregon and get marijuana in return.

• The address was handwritten, not typed.

• The sender's listed ZIP code was different from the one where the package originated.

On the eve of trial in December 2012, Barnthouse's attorney, Stephen Houze, argued that the evidence should be suppressed because police violated Barnthouse's constitutional right to be free from unlawful search or seizure.
Judge Christopher Marshall agreed, finding the first misstep by police was physically removing the package from the mail stream when they had no reasonable suspicion or probable cause.
Prosecutors brought the case to the Court of Appeals, arguing that police hadn't actually "seized" the package. They also said Barnthouse had no "possessory interests" in the package because officers brought it to his home hours before its guaranteed express-mail delivery time of noon.
The appeals court disagreed in 2015 by upholding Marshall's lower court ruling. Thursday, the Supreme Court also upheld Marshall's ruling, by finding that Barnthouse indeed had a "possessory interest" in the package while it was in transit to him.
That meant police first needed to get a warrant to pull aside the package.
The Supreme Court ruled that although police stood on Barnthouse's doorstep hours before the guaranteed delivery time for the package, if Barnthouse hadn't consented to their opening of the package, they would ground the process to a halt while they asked a judge for a warrant.
"They had no intention of delivering (the package)," Houze, Barnthouse's defense attorney, told The Oregonian/OregonLive on Thursday.
Houze applauded Thursday's ruling, noting this is the first time the high court has ruled on the practice of police and postal inspectors pulling aside mail without warrants.


http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2016/10/police_pulling_packages_from_m.html

 

[unregistered190]

thanks for sharing

 

[noyd666]

yes love reading the good, fuk em.

 

[stoned40yrs]

Bout time, fucking pigs.

 

[MJPassion]

But will the cops continue doing what they've been doing?
If they're not stopped then there will be more victims of the same illegal practices.

 

[delta9nxs]

lesson here is don't use the usps, an entity with their own internal police force, funded by taxpayers.

 

[watts]

lesson here is not to send packages the way they did. USPS or not. There were 5 red flags that lead to the suspicion.

 

[Josh@Summit]

Hopefully soon, the United States Government will realize that marijuana should not be illegal. They can benefit from the taxes!

 

[therevverend]

How stupid is that guy? If the police brought a sketchy looking package to my house addressed to 'Maxi-Pad' I'd tell them it's not my name, not my mail. Return to sender. Only an fool would claim it. Of course it's good news that even that sort of idiot doesn't have to go to jail.
It's a lot of fun to think up good pseudonyms but they need to sound believable. I like adding Dr, Capt, Rev, Col to the front to make the person sound more important. Cops respect that kind of stuff. His Excellency Dr Capt Maxipad might have gotten through.
The 'profiling' type stuff the cops did, the handwritten address and 'drug state' stuff is bullshit. Basically a package from anywhere on the west coast is suspect. Different zip code is a dumb mistake but could be an accident.

 

[watts]

How stupid is that guy? If the police brought a sketchy looking package to my house addressed to 'Maxi-Pad' I'd tell them it's not my name, not my mail. Return to sender. Only an fool would claim it. Of course it's good news that even that sort of idiot doesn't have to go to jail.
It's a lot of fun to think up good pseudonyms but they need to sound believable. I like adding Dr, Capt, Rev, Col to the front to make the person sound more important. Cops respect that kind of stuff. His Excellency Dr Capt Maxipad might have gotten through.
The 'profiling' type stuff the cops did, the handwritten address and 'drug state' stuff is bullshit. Basically a package from anywhere on the west coast is suspect. Different zip code is a dumb mistake but could be an accident.

It's definitely not bullshit. Each one counts as a red flag when they are profiling packages, especially express mail like this guy used. The package came from Delaware with money sent to Oregon where the guy that was presumed the weed shipper got busted. Also, when you don't address packages to the person's name that lives there, it can be a red flag. While one or two red flags may not get a package seized, the more red flags the more likely it will be.

 

[Green Squall]

What's wrong with handwriting the address? I don't see how that would be a red flag.

 

[Gry]

Want the package to look like it came from corporate central.

 

[therevverend]

So you're suggesting that every package sent from Alaska, Washington, Oregon, California, Colorado, plus the medical states sent express is 'suspicious'? When my grandma sends me a fruitcake from Rhode Island with my address written by her on it that's a 'red flag'. It's silly. It's profiling. And that's why it's unconstitutional.

 

[therevverend]

And yes to look like an 'official corporate lackey' it's nice to have a bundle of those preprinted stick on name and address things you get. A lot of places, like the national parks, send them for free if you get on their mailing list. And they'll add the professional title if you include it by your name. So be sure to get a load of Capt Rev Dr Col Maxipad preprinted stickers.

 

[watts]

So you're suggesting that every package sent from Alaska, Washington, Oregon, California, Colorado, plus the medical states sent express is 'suspicious'? When my grandma sends me a fruitcake from Rhode Island with my address written by her on it that's a 'red flag'. It's silly. It's profiling. And that's why it's unconstitutional.

No, not every package from those states are suspicious but it is part of the profiling process as you said. USPS Express mail is an overnight service. Most of those are documents sent from business to individual or individual to business. It's an expensive service and your average person doesn't use it to send to another individual as much. Inspectors and police know this so they use this when profiling packages. If one of the names is Hispanic, it can be investigated further. And yes, that is "bullshit" but it happens.

Years ago there was a member that posted a thread on here that listed all the possible red flags when they profile packages. See below, highlighted in bold:

Most Americans use the U.S. Postal Service nearly every day. Whether to send bills to clients, advertise for new customers, or exchange letters with friends, citizens rely on the Postal Service to help them conduct their professional and personal business. Unfortunately, some people use it to conduct illegal business--namely, drug distribution.

In Omaha, Nebraska, authorities have taken steps to cut off the drug trade conducted by mail. In 1988. inspectors from the U.S. Postal Inspection Service proposed a partnership with the Omaha, Nebraska, Police Department's Narcotics Unit to interdict drugs transported into the city by mail. Prior intelligence gathering revealed that dealers smuggled large amounts of cocaine into Omaha simply by wrapping up the drugs and mailing them at the post office. Smugglers often used express delivery methods because the demands of quick delivery lowered the chances of detection by postal inspectors.

The joint operation has yielded positive results. In one early case, inspectors intercepted a suspicious package mailed from Los Angeles, California, to an Omaha address. Based on the subsequent investigation, inspectors obtained a search warrant search warrant n. a written order by a judge which permits a law enforcement officer to search a specific place (eg. 112 Magnolia Avenue, Apartment 3, or a 1991 Pontiac, Texas License number 123ABC) and identifies the persons (if known) and any articles intended to be seized (often specified by type, such as "weapons," "drugs and drug paraphernalia," "evidence of bodily harm"). for the package, which contained 6 ounces (186 grams) of powdered cocaine.




The drugs led the joint team to a big arrest when an undercover postal inspector made a controlled delivery of the package to the mailing address in Omaha, and police officers immediately executed a search warrant on the location. Inside, officers apprehended a hard core gang member who had relocated from southern California and established gun- and drug-running operations in the city. The success of this operation and others like it stemmed from two factors: Use of a package profile to identify suspicious parcels and close cooperation between the U.S. Postal Inspection Service and the Omaha Police Narcotics Unit during the investigatory process.

THE PROFILE

To identify pieces of mail that might contain controlled substances, postal inspectors rely on a package profile based on a readily discernable, predetermined set of criteria. Past court decisions make clear that the regular application of a consistent set of criteria is not intrusive.(1) Using the profile helps establish reasonable suspicion, which is required by the Postal Service to detain mail for examination.(2)

The profile sets criteria for both the package's condition and its label. Taken individually, few of the criteria would indicate that the package contains contraband; however, a combination of these factors indicates a suspicious package worthy of a second look.

First, in terms of the package itself, inspectors look for parcels that have been heavily taped along the seams, have been prepared poorly for mailing, have an uneven weight distribution, or apparently have been reused. However, inspectors do not identify questionable pieces of mail only by sight; suspicious packages frequently emit odors of marijuana or of a masking agent, such as perfume, coffee, or fabric-softener sheets.

Second, package labels often provide clues. Inspectors look for labels that have been handwritten; contain misspelled names, streets, or cities; originate from a drug-source State; and have been sent from one person to another, not from a business to an individual. Further identifiers include a return address ZIP code that does not match the accepting post office ZIP code or a fictitious return address. Finally, the names of the sender and/or the receiver frequently have a common ring to them, such as John Smith, and have no connection to either address.

Postal inspectors receive copies of all labels from packages signed for by the recipient. If a particular address receives multiple deliveries from a drug-source State, for example, inspectors will check with postal carriers at both the sending and receiving addresses to verify names and addresses. If the return address is fictitious or if the listed names do not have a connection to either address, inspectors will be alert to intercept future packages.

THE INVESTIGATION

The Postal Inspection Service bears responsibility for detecting suspicious packages. This type of investigation requires patience, because inspectors routinely examine hundreds of mailing labels on packages sent through the mail. Through these examinations, inspectors attempt to recognize packages matching the profile characteristics. When they locate a suspicious package, the investigation begins.

Present Package to Drug Dog

Upon discovery of a suspicious package, postal inspectors notify the Omaha Police Narcotics Unit. The unit's supervisor assigns a drug dog handler to meet with the inspector and present the package to the dog.

Presentation strategies vary. Sometimes the handler hides the package to see if the dog can sniff out its location. At other times, the handler presents the suspicious package to the dog, along with other similar parcels.

The dog handler carefully records the details of the presentation for future use as search warrant documentation. The dog's positive reaction to the package indicates the presence of drugs, which in many cases establishes probable cause to prepare a search warrant to inspect the parcel's contents.

Obtain Search Warrants

Suspicious package investigations typically require two search warrants: One to open and search the package and one to search the mailing address after delivery of the parcel. Postal inspectors and police investigators work closely to ensure that all documentation for the warrants is complete and accurate, important factors in obtaining evidence and prosecuting the case.

Searching the Package

Because the U.S. mail falls under Federal jurisdiction, a Federal warrant must be obtained for any suspicious package. The police drug dog handler helps the inspector prepare the affidavit because they must provide the magistrate with a history of the dog's reliability and past achievements.

Having obtained the warrant, postal inspectors open the package. This important step must not be dealt with carelessly. The package might need to be resealed for a controlled delivery, so inspectors must exercise caution. To preserve fingerprints on any item or contraband, the person opening the package wears rubber gloves. Inspectors also photograph the opening of the parcel in a series of steps for use as future evidence.

In the formative stages of Omaha's program, postal inspectors and police investigators met with prosecutors to determine a strategy for handling cases brought by the joint team. They concurred that when a package containing drugs was identified, investigators would remove most of the drugs, leaving just a small amount to be resealed in the package and delivered later. Prosecutors agreed that they could argue successfully in court that the defendant found in possession of the resealed package actually had "constructive possession constructive possession n. when a person does not have actual possession, but has the power to control an asset, he/she has constructive possession. Having the key to a safe deposit box, for example, gives one constructive possession. (See: constructive)" of the original amount of contraband. However, to preserve the elements of the State or Federal drugs violation, it would be best if at least some of the drugs originally seized were delivered in the package.

After removing most of the illegal substance, inspectors frequently replace it with an imitation so as not to alert suspects when they open the package. For example, a recent investigation in Omaha located a large amount of crack cocaine formed into the shape of cookies. Investigators left several of the original crack cookies in the package but substituted sugar cookies for the rest.

On a practical note, this procedure safeguards against the loss of the evidence in the unlikely event that the subject eludes police officers after the package is delivered but before the search warrant of the residence can be executed. Omaha officers quickly discovered that suspects often attempt to leave the location with the evidence immediately following the controlled delivery of the package but prior to the entry team's arrival.

Searching the Address

Once the package has been searched and resealed, the Omaha Police Narcotics Unit supervisor prepares a search warrant for the mailing address. This does not have to be a Federal warrant, but the Federal search warrant used to open the package is referenced in the warrant petition and a copy is attached.

A police investigator and the postal inspector collaborate to prepare the second search warrant. The affidavit describes exactly how the investigation began--with discovery of the suspicious package--and follows with the details of presenting the parcel to the drug dog, obtaining the Federal search warrant, opening the package, and locating the drugs. The affidavit also notes that officers removed a specific amount of the drug from the package, left a small amount, and refilled the package with an imitation substance.

This type of search warrant is anticipatory in nature. That is, the affidavit clearly must show that law enforcement officers currently possess the drugs to be seized and that they intend to serve the search warrant after the controlled delivery of the package. If probable cause exists, items such as packaging materials, scales, long distance telephone bills, money, drug records, and additional drugs should be listed on the warrant to be seized. Any historical or intelligence information about the address of the anticipated delivery or the persons known to frequent the address also should be documented in the affidavit.

Prepare for Delivery

The next step involves delivering the package to the intended address under carefully controlled conditions. The Narcotics Unit supervisor handles three aspects of this operation. The supervisor arranges the controlled delivery, establishes a secure perimeter around the address to prevent the subject from leaving with the package, and supervises the execution of the search warrant.

First, the supervisor conducts an extensive reconnaissance of the address, especially noting all possible exits. Because at least several minutes will elapse between the controlled delivery and the execution of the search warrant to allow the recipient time to open the package, all exits of the address must be placed under surveillance to prevent anyone from leaving with the package.

Second, the supervisor briefs all officers involved in executing the search warrant, dividing officers between the perimeter and entry teams. The perimeter team, which keeps all exits of the target address under surveillance, must be positioned to stop and arrest anyone who might leave with the package after it has been delivered. The entry team, which typically comprises Omaha police officers, postal inspectors, and occasionally, FBI agents, serves the warrant, makes appropriate arrests, and conducts the subsequent search of the premises.

Deliver the Package

An undercover postal inspector normally delivers the package after the perimeter team takes its position. In most situations, the Narcotics Unit supervisor then gives the recipient enough time to open the package, because an opened package undermines the commonly used defense that the suspect did not know what it contained.

In addition, experience shows that the original recipient often will turn over the parcel to a second person who arrives within minutes of the delivery. For this reason, the supervisor might choose to wait a considerable length of time before sending in the entry team.

Execute the Search Warrant

At the appropriate time, the entry team executes the search warrant for the package on the target location. During the search, officers remain alert for additional drugs, drug records, money, long distance telephone bills, scales, baggies, and other labels of packages previously mailed to the address, as listed on the warrant.

Upon completion of the search, the supervisor quickly analyzes the situation to determine whether to interrogate the person who signed for the package on the scene. If such questioning could prove fruitful, the suspect is advised of his Miranda rights. On occasion, by immediately interrogating the recipient, investigators have convinced suspects to make tape-recorded telephone contact with a second suspect who, in turn, arrived at the scene only to be arrested.

Investigators question the arrested parties thoroughly to determine their knowledge of the parcel's contents and their connections with a network of people involved in smuggling the package into the city. Many postal profiling cases in Omaha have resulted in Federal prosecution of individuals in other States, such as California, for participating in drug smuggling operations.

SUCCESSES

The success of the package profiling program in Omaha proves that law enforcement can transcend jurisdictional boundaries to combat crimes that often go undetected. Highlights of the program include two separate seizures of 3-pound quantities of crack cocaine valued at approximately $250,000 each that had been mailed to Omaha from sources in Los Angeles.

Not all seizures have run smoothly. In one case, inspectors intercepted a package containing 5 ounces (155 grams) of methamphetamine. Following standard procedure, officers removed all but 5 grams of the substance, which they sealed in a tube taped to the inside of the package. A female at the target address signed for the package during the controlled delivery, but when officers executed the search warrant, no drugs could be found. Knowing that they had delivered the methamphetamine, officers conducted an extensive and thorough search of the premises but to no avail. Finally, several hours later, the woman vomited the tube intact. She had swallowed it when she saw the law enforcement officers approach the residence.

Despite the occasional mishap, the package profiling system has produced many seizures that have netted both crack and powdered cocaine, marijuana, LSD, methamphetamine, heroin, steroids, and hallucinogenic mushrooms. Prosecutors have obtained numerous felony convictions in both Federal and State courts.

CONCLUSION

Profiling postal packages represents a challenging and exciting aspect of drug enforcement. In the future, law enforcement agencies might expand the use of this technique to detect packages transported by private carriers and parcel services.

The expertise gained by working with postal inspectors to detect controlled substances sent by mail could be applied to private carriers in an attempt to choke off other conduits for transporting controlled substances. By employing every method available, U.S. Postal Inspectors can work with local law enforcement agencies to keep the Postal Service from being an unwitting and unwilling drug courier.

RELATED ARTICLE: The Profile

Postal inspectors use these criteria to identify packages that might contain drugs.

Package Criteria

* Emits odors of marijuana or or a masking agent (e.g., coffee, perfume, fabric-softener sheets)

* Is heavily taped along seams

* Is poorly prepared for mailing

* Appears to have been re-used

* Has an uneven weight distribution

Label Criteria

* Is handwritten

* Contains misspelled names, streets, or cities

* Originates from a drug source State

* Has been sent from an individual to an individual

* Contains return address ZIP code that does not match accepting post office ZIP code

* Shows a fictitious return address

* Lists sender's and/or receiver's names of common type (e.g., John Smith) that are not connected to either address

Endnotes

(1) United States v. Hill, 701 F. Supp. 1522 (D.C.Kan. 1988). (2) The U.S. Postal Service's Administrative Support Manual (ASM), Section 274.31, disallows any mail sealed against inspection (i.e., First-Class, Express Mail) to be detained, even for a dog sniff, with very few exceptions. ASM 274.31 (a) notes that "a Postal Inspector acting diligently and without avoidable delay, upon reasonable suspicion, for a brief period of time [may detain a piece of mail] to assemble sufficient evidence to satisfy the probable-cause requirement for a search warrant, and to apply for, obtain, and execute the warrant." Therefore, reasonable suspicion must exist before the mail can be detained.