State of Minnesota v. Corey Joel Eichers
2014 Minn. LEXIS 456
| Minn. | 2014Background
- At MSP airport UPS parcel sorting, Investigator Meyer removed a package from a conveyor belt, placed it on the floor with other packages, and had a trained narcotics dog sniff the group; the dog alerted to a package addressed to Corey (Cory) Eichers.
- After the alert, Meyer obtained a warrant, opened the package, and found cocaine and methamphetamine concealed in a coffee container.
- Eichers was later arrested after a controlled delivery; he admitted receiving and reselling drugs.
- Eichers moved to suppress the package evidence, arguing the initial removal/detention was an unreasonable seizure and the dog sniff was an unreasonable search (Fourth Amendment and Minn. Const. art. I, § 10).
- The district court held there was no seizure and the dog sniff was not a search; the court of appeals affirmed on different grounds (finding reasonable suspicion); the Minnesota Supreme Court granted review.
Issues
| Issue | Eichers' Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether moving a mailed package from conveyor to floor for a dog sniff is a "seizure" | Removal and detention asserted dominion and control amounting to a seizure requiring justification | Movement was minimal and did not meaningfully interfere with possessory interests (timely delivery, carrier custody) so not a seizure | Not a seizure: no meaningful interference with possessory interests (timely delivery, carrier custody, freedom of movement) |
| Whether a dog sniff of a mailed package is a "search" under the Fourth Amendment | Dog sniff reveals information about contents and infringes reasonable privacy expectation | Canine sniff is minimally intrusive, reveals only presence/absence of contraband, so not a search | Not a search under the Fourth Amendment: dog sniff reveals only contraband and does not implicate legitimate privacy interest |
| Whether Minnesota Constitution affords greater protection (Carter/Davis) for dog sniffs of mailed packages | Minnesota precedent (Carter/Davis) requires reasonable, articulable suspicion for dog sniffs in some contexts; should extend to mailed packages | Mailed packages differ from storage units/homes (less private, less personal activity, lower risk from false alerts), so Carter/Davis should not extend | Minnesota Constitution does not provide greater protection here; dog sniff of mailed package is not a search under Article I, § 10 |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Jacobsen, 466 U.S. 109 (seizure requires meaningful interference with possessory interests)
- United States v. Place, 462 U.S. 696 (canine sniff of luggage is sui generis and not a search)
- United States v. Van Leeuwen, 397 U.S. 249 (privacy interest in mailed packages; detention can become unreasonable depending on delay)
- Illinois v. Caballes, 543 U.S. 405 (dog sniff that reveals only contraband does not violate Fourth Amendment)
- United States v. Va Lerie, 424 F.3d 694 (Eighth Circuit factors for meaningful interference with carrier property: impact on movement, delay in delivery, loss of carrier custody)
- State v. Carter, 697 N.W.2d 199 (Minn. 2005) (Minnesota required reasonable suspicion for dog sniffs outside storage units)
- State v. Davis, 732 N.W.2d 173 (Minn. 2007) (applied Carter to apartment hallway)