00-3423, 00-3549, 00-3694 U.S. v. Crowley, et al.

Listen to this article

“Although the police were present when Champaigne re-opened the package, the district court found no suggestion that the officers gave Champaigne a ‘wink-and- a-nudge,’ or otherwise encouraged her to show them the contents of the package. Rather, the court credited Officer Koneczy’s testimony that the officers were surprised when Champaigne re-opened the package, and we defer to the court’s credibility determination. See United States v. Woods, 233 F.3d 482, 484-85 (7th Cir. 2000). The mere fact that the police witness a private party’s search does not transform the private party into a governmental agent. See United States v. Smythe, 84 F.3d 1240, 1243 (10th Cir. 1996).

“Champaigne’s motivation to assist law enforcement does not change the result in this case. ‘Concern about the effects of crime on the public at large is not a vice which one must assume signifies a conspiracy with the government, but a cherished, commonly held, and wholesome virtue.’ Koenig, 856 F.2d at 851. The key here is that the officers did not induce Champaigne to act. See id. at 850; Shahid, 117 F.3d at 327. There is no suggestion that Champaigne expected either a benefit for opening the package or a detriment for not opening the package. See Shahid, 117 F.3d at 327; Feffer, 831 F.2d at 737. In other words, Champaigne acted out of her own desire to help the police and not as their agent. ‘Private parties may, of their own accord, pursue the same objectives they have set for their elected officials without acquiring the legal status of governmental agent.’ Shahid, 117 F.3d at 326. The district court thus properly rejected the Crowleys’ Fourth Amendment claim.”

Affirmed.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin, Crabb, J., Rovner, J.