Summary
The Oregon Supreme Court held that the addressee of an express-mail package has a constitutionally protected possessory interest in the package while it is in transit. By retaining physical control of the package and interfering with its guaranteed delivery, police significantly interfered with that interest and seized the package under Article I, section 9, of the Oregon Constitution. The court affirmed suppression of evidence obtained from the package and the defendant’s room.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the addressee of an in-transit express-mail package has a constitutionally protected possessory interest in the package under Article I, section 9, of the Oregon Constitution.
- Whether officers significantly interfered with that possessory interest, thereby seizing the package, by retaining physical control and curtailing its guaranteed delivery while seeking consent to search it.
- Whether the seizure violated Article I, section 9, where the state did not preserve its argument that reasonable suspicion justified a warrantless investigative seizure of the package.
- Whether the evidence discovered in the package and bedroom was properly suppressed as the product of the unlawful seizure.
Holdings
- An addressee has a constitutionally protected, contract-based possessory interest in an in-transit package that, at a minimum, includes the right to receive delivery by the package's guaranteed delivery time.
- Officers seize an in-transit package when, while retaining physical control of it, they curtail its guaranteed delivery to the addressee. The officers significantly interfered with defendant's protected possessory interest and seized the package under Article I, section 9.
- The Supreme Court would not consider the state's argument that reasonable suspicion justified the warrantless seizure because the state failed to preserve that argument in the Court of Appeals.
- Because the package was unlawfully seized under Article I, section 9, the trial court correctly suppressed the evidence discovered as a result of that seizure.
Key quotations
“Here, defendant had a contract-based possessory interest in the package while it was in transit that, at a minimum, included the right to receive delivery of it by its guaranteed delivery time.” (at 418)
“Under those circumstances—that is, where, having physical control of the package, the officers curtailed its guaranteed delivery to defendant—the trial court did not err in concluding that the officers significantly interfered with defendant’s possessory interest in the package and, therefore, seized it.” (at 419-20)
“Because the package was unlawfully seized, the trial court correctly suppressed the evidence discovered as a result of that seizure.” (at 421)
Factual background
Postal inspectors and Portland police officers removed an express-mail package addressed to defendant from the mail-sorting process, subjected it to a drug-detection dog sniff, and retained physical control of it. The package had a guaranteed delivery time of noon, but officers took it to defendant's residence before that time and sought consent to open it; defendant consented, and the package contained currency. Officers then obtained consent to search defendant's bedroom, where they found marijuana and shipping materials. Defendant was charged with marijuana offenses, and the trial court suppressed the evidence.
Procedural history
The Multnomah County Circuit Court granted defendant's motion to suppress, concluding that police seized the package without reasonable suspicion or probable cause and a warrant and exploited that illegality in obtaining consent to search. The Court of Appeals affirmed. The Oregon Supreme Court granted review and affirmed the Court of Appeals and circuit court, although on somewhat different reasoning.