9 F.4th 682
8th Cir.2021Background
- DEA/FedEx interdiction: Detective Garcia (22 years’ experience) removed a glued-shut moving box from a FedEx conveyor, carried it ~200 feet to a K9; the dog (Zina) immediately alerted and officers seized the box.
- Officers obtained a state warrant for the box and an anticipatory warrant for the delivery address; they performed a controlled delivery to Green’s apartment.
- Green arrived, said on the phone that “the box had arrived,” placed the box inside, and was arrested outside the building minutes later.
- A tactical team conducted a ~10-minute protective sweep of the apartment, looking in cupboards, trash, and a shoebox; they observed weapons and marijuana in plain view but did not seize them at that time.
- Detective Garcia opened the box at headquarters and found 24.4 lbs of marijuana; a subsequent federal warrant yielded firearms, ammunition, drug paraphernalia, and other evidence.
- Procedural posture: Green’s suppression motions were denied; he conditionally pled guilty to 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) and appealed. The Eighth Circuit affirmed on seizure and arrest issues, held the protective sweep unconstitutional in scope and remanded for district-court findings on whether the independent-source doctrine applies.
Issues
| Issue | Green's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether initial removal of the FedEx box was a Fourth Amendment seizure lacking reasonable suspicion | Garcia seized the box by removing it from the conveyor and walking it to the K9 without reasonable suspicion | Garcia acted at FedEx’s direction and K9 alert occurred before any constitutionally cognizable seizure; dog alert supplies reasonable suspicion | No seizure occurred until after the K9 alert; seizure justified by the alert (reasonable suspicion) |
| Whether officers had probable cause to arrest Green after he placed the box in his apartment | Officers lacked probable cause; Green might have been retrieving a friend’s package | Suspicious box features + reliable K9 alert + Green’s delivery, statement, and familiarity with the box gave a substantial probability of criminal activity | Probable cause supported the warrantless arrest |
| Whether the protective sweep of the apartment (10–15 minutes; cupboards, trash, shoebox) violated the Fourth Amendment | The sweep exceeded the anticipatory warrant’s scope and was an unlawful exhaustive search | The sweep was justified by the need to secure premises during a narcotics investigation (Bailey/Summers) | Sweep unconstitutional: in a non-arrest warrant context, Buie/Waldner require reasonable suspicion of dangerous persons and sweeps must be quick and limited; here sweep lacked initial reasonable suspicion and exceeded permissible scope |
| Whether evidence seized after the sweep is admissible under the independent-source or good-faith exceptions | Evidence tainted by the unconstitutional sweep should be suppressed; district court must find whether warrant decision was prompted by the unlawful sweep | Independent-source or Leon good-faith exceptions salvage the evidence because the box and Green’s conduct would have supported a warrant independent of the sweep | Remanded for limited factfinding: district court must explicitly determine whether officers would have sought the search warrant absent the protective sweep (i.e., whether independent-source applies); Leon not applied because sweep was clearly illegal |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Va Lerie, 424 F.3d 694 (8th Cir. 2005) (framework for when governmental handling of property constitutes a Fourth Amendment seizure)
- United States v. Zacher, 465 F.3d 336 (8th Cir. 2006) (K9 alert supports seizure; moving package at carrier’s direction does not necessarily constitute a seizure)
- United States v. Alvarez-Manzo, 570 F.3d 1070 (8th Cir. 2009) (distinguishes custody analysis by whose direction officers act)
- Maryland v. Buie, 494 U.S. 325 (1990) (authorizes limited protective sweeps incident to arrest and prescribes scope)
- United States v. Waldner, 425 F.3d 514 (8th Cir. 2005) (in non-arrest contexts, protective sweeps require reasonable suspicion of dangerous individuals)
- United States v. Rodriguez, 834 F.3d 937 (8th Cir. 2016) (reaffirming that protective sweeps without arrest require reasonable suspicion)
- Murray v. United States, 487 U.S. 533 (1988) (independent-source doctrine permitting admission of evidence later obtained independently of an unlawful search)
- United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (1984) (good-faith exception to exclusionary rule)