State of Minnesota v. Huy Vu Le
A16-56
| Minn. Ct. App. | Oct 31, 2016Background
- In July 2013 a FedEx employee at the Minneapolis–St. Paul Airport flagged a suspicious airmail package and contacted Officer Mark Meyer, a narcotics investigator experienced in parcel interdiction.
- Officer Meyer placed the package among 15–20 other packages and had Brio, a trained narcotics-detection dog, sniff them; Brio alerted to this package.
- Based on the alert, Officer Meyer obtained a warrant to search the package and found marijuana starter plants; a controlled delivery led to appellant Huy Vu Le taking custody of the package.
- After further investigation, officers obtained and executed a warrant for Le’s residence and discovered a marijuana grow operation; Le was charged with controlled-substance offenses.
- Le moved to suppress the evidence, arguing the officer’s removal of the package from the conveyor belt for a canine sniff constituted a Fourth Amendment seizure without reasonable, articulable suspicion; the district court denied suppression, Le stipulated to the facts to appeal, and was convicted of fifth-degree controlled-substance crime.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether removing the package from the conveyor belt for a canine sniff constituted a Fourth Amendment seizure | Le: removal and detention of the package was a seizure requiring reasonable, articulable suspicion | State: removal was dominion/control but did not meaningfully interfere with possessory interests, so not a seizure | Court held no seizure occurred because there was no meaningful interference with possessory interests |
| If a seizure occurred, whether officers had reasonable, articulable suspicion to detain the package | Le: officer lacked reasonable, articulable suspicion for the sniff/detention | State: not reached because no seizure; relied on probable cause after dog alert and warrant | Court did not address because it concluded no seizure occurred |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Eichers, 853 N.W.2d 114 (Minn. 2014) (controlling test: seizure requires meaningful interference with possessory interests)
- United States v. Jacobsen, 466 U.S. 109 (U.S. 1984) (dominion or control alone is insufficient for a seizure absent meaningful interference)
- State v. Milton, 821 N.W.2d 789 (Minn. 2012) (standard of review for suppression rulings: de novo legal review, clear-error factual review)
- State v. Ward, 580 N.W.2d 67 (Minn. App. 1998) (appellate courts must follow established supreme court precedent)