United States v. Beard
16 F.4th 1115
| 5th Cir. | 2021Background
- In January 2018 Clarence Beard mailed a package from Houston to Kelly McAllister in Hammond, Louisiana; investigations had previously linked Beard (alias “Nick Johnson”) to mailed pill shipments and to McAllister by $1,000 wire transfers.
- Postal inspector Jeffery Gordon received an automated alert and viewed the package photo; based on handwriting, origin post office, sender alias, fake return address, and the McAllister connection, he had reasonable suspicion to detain the parcel.
- The package arrived in Hammond on January 11 and was pulled from the mail stream; Gordon requested it be rerouted to Houston for further investigation and lab testing rather than conducting a local canine sniff in Hammond.
- The parcel took five days to return to Houston (longer than Gordon expected); upon arrival Gordon had a canine sniff the next morning (dog alerted), then obtained a search warrant within 48 hours and discovered drugs.
- The district court found the initial seizure lawful, the rerouting and five-day transit were not the result of law enforcement negligence and were reasonable under the circumstances, and denied Beard’s motion to suppress; Beard appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether rerouting the package to Houston and the ensuing five-day transit converted a reasonable Terry-style detention into an unreasonable Fourth Amendment seizure | The Government: detention supported by reasonable suspicion; rerouting was reasonable given logistics, testing needs, and anticipated similar timing for a local warrant; delay largely outside investigators' control | Beard: rerouting 400 miles and five-day transit unnecessarily prolonged the seizure; a canine sniff in Hammond was readily available and would have shortened delay | Court: Affirmed — rerouting and delay were reasonable under the facts; investigators were diligent and delays were beyond their control |
| Whether failing to conduct a local canine sniff showed lack of investigatory diligence | Govt: canine sniff in Hammond would have required coordinating distant personnel, new agents, and different AUSAs; testing needed Houston lab; overall timeline would likely be similar | Beard: local canine was available and would have materially shortened investigative delay | Court: The choice to reroute was a reasonable, prudent investigative decision and did not show lack of diligence |
| Whether this case is controlled by People v. Shapiro (rerouting far from destination) | Govt: facts tied the investigation to Houston (origin, suspect, lab), so rerouting to Houston was justified | Beard: relied on Shapiro to argue rerouting far afield made delay unreasonable | Court: Distinguished Shapiro — here ties to Houston and lab/testing needs justified rerouting |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Van Leeuwen, 397 U.S. 249 (1970) (packages may be detained on reasonable suspicion but detention can become an unreasonable seizure depending on circumstances)
- United States v. Jacobsen, 466 U.S. 109 (1984) (distinguishes searches from seizures and defines possessory interference)
- Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) (reasonable-suspicion standard for stops and limited detentions)
- United States v. Gill, 280 F.3d 923 (9th Cir. 2002) (upheld multi-day detention where investigation was diligent and delays were beyond agents' control)
- People v. Shapiro, 687 N.E.2d 65 (Ill. 1997) (held rerouting a package far from origin/destination contributed to unreasonable investigatory delay)