United States v. Cesar Gonzalez, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 4703

Background

Gonzalez pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine; district court imposed 168 months’ imprisonment.
March 19, 2012: UPS driver flagged cash in a package from Tony Young; UPS opened it at a supervisor’s direction due to safety concerns.
Police later linked Young and Gonzalez; a second package from Gonzalez to Young prompted a canine alert at the Coralville, Iowa facility.
Dog alert led to a warrant and seizure of 7.2 ounces of methamphetamine from the fourth package; subsequent searches revealed related evidence at Gonzalez’s home.
Gonzalez moved to suppress the March 19 search and March 22 seizure; district court denied; Gonzalez pleaded guilty reserving right to appeal.
Appeal challenged suppression ruling and the 168-month sentence; court affirmed on both grounds.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Private search and Fourth Amendment	Gonzalez argues UPS/private search implicated Fourth Amendment rights.	Gonzalez contends private search was government action via agent-like conduct.	Search did not implicate Fourth Amendment; private action not government action.
Reasonable suspicion and seizure timing	Second package seizure violated Fourth Amendment, lacking reasonable suspicion.	Aggregate facts supported reasonable suspicion; detention reasonable in duration.	Reasonable suspicion supported; detention duration was reasonable.
Probable cause and dog alert	Dog sniff did not establish probable cause for the search warrant.	Dog alert, with certified training, presumptively supports probable cause.	Presumption of probable cause from dog alert upheld; district court properly found probable cause.
Franks hearing and omissions	Omission of the dog’s initial interest in package three warranted a Franks hearing.	Omission not so material; no reckless disregard established.	No substantial showing warranting a Franks hearing; no abuse of discretion.

Key Cases Cited

United States v. Jimenez, 478 F.3d 929 (8th Cir. 2007) (fact-finding reviewed for clear error; law de novo)
United States v. Jacobsen, 466 U.S. 109 (Supreme Court 1984) (private search not implicating Fourth Amendment when no government knowledge)
United States v. Livesay, 983 F.2d 135 (8th Cir. 1993) (private search not implicating Fourth Amendment where no government participation)
United States v. Malbrough, 922 F.2d 458 (8th Cir. 1990) (police not directing search; private search valid)
United States v. Smith, 383 F.3d 700 (8th Cir. 2004) (private search vs. government agency factors)
Place v. United States, 462 U.S. 696 (Supreme Court 1983) (detention duration factors; no bright-line time limit)
United States v. Lakoskey, 462 F.3d 965 (8th Cir. 2006) (factors for reasonable suspicion in parcel contexts)
United States v. Ramirez, 342 F.3d 1210 (10th Cir. 2003) (cases on detention duration with reasonable suspicion)
Florida v. Harris, 133 S. Ct. 1050 (Supreme Court 2013) (dog alert admissibility and reliability framework)
Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (Supreme Court 1978) (standard for a Franks hearing)
United States v. Williams, 477 F.3d 554 (8th Cir. 2007) (Franks hearing and probable cause standard)
United States v. Reivich, 793 F.2d 957 (8th Cir. 1986) (Franks-related standards on omission materiality)
United States v. Donnelly, 475 F.3d 946 (8th Cir. 2007) (diligence in timing of seizures and searches)
United States v. Duke, 935 F.2d 161 (8th Cir. 1991) (abuse of discretion standard in sentencing)
United States v. Passmore, 984 F.2d 933 (8th Cir. 1993) (plea-related acceptance of responsibility not automatic)
United States v. Morales, 923 F.2d 621 (8th Cir. 1991) (burden to demonstrate responsibility for acceptance)
United States v. Plaza, 471 F.3d 876 (8th Cir. 2006) (disparity considerations when defendants are not similarly situated)
United States v. Perkins, 526 F.3d 1107 (8th Cir. 2008) (§3553(a) factors need not be listed exhaustively)
United States v. Tomlinson, 537 F.3d 1105 (8th Cir. 2008) (monitors district court’s weighing of factors)