01-2206 U.S. v. Ganser

Listen to this article

“[T]he CI correctly predicted that Simmons would receive a letter from a ‘Cheryl’ in California in a greeting card-type envelope. These details accurately predicted future behavior, demonstrating inside information and a special familiarity with Simmons’ affairs. See White, 496 U.S. at 332. The fact that the CI provided an incorrect city for ‘Cheryl’ and an incorrect date of arrival is not fatal, given the information that the CI got right. After the majority of information in the CI’s tip was corroborated, it was reasonable for the authorities to conclude that the CI’s allegation that the letter contained contraband was true as well. We conclude that under the totality of the circumstances reasonable suspicion existed to support the removal of the first letter from the mail stream.

“[T]he first letter was detained based on reasonable suspicion as discussed above from Thursday until Friday, at which time a narcotics trained canine alerted to it. Once the canine alerted to the letter, reasonable suspicion was elevated to probable cause. See United States v. Jones, 275 F.3d 648, 654 (7th Cir. 2001), cert. denied, 122 S.Ct. 1941 (2002). We have previously held that a two-day detention of letters in order to subject them to a canine sniff test was brief enough to be sustained by reasonable suspicion. United States v. Mayomi, 873 F.2d 1049, 1054 (7th Cir. 1989). Furthermore, postal authorities in the present case acted diligently. Once the dog alerted to the first letter, it was reasonable to continue detaining the letter long enough to allow for inspection of the second letter. When the second letter arrived in Des Moines on Saturday, Miskanic determined that it probably did not contain narcotics. However, it was too late to set up a controlled delivery in Colona for Saturday, and first class mail is not delivered on Sunday. Therefore, Miskanic effectuated a controlled delivery Monday, the earliest possible time. Under the circumstances of this case, the four-day delay in delivering the first letter was not constitutionally unreasonable.”

Affirmed.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois, McDade, J., Harlington Wood, J.