Jоrge Mario Cardona appeals following his entry of conditional pleas of guilty to two counts of possession of cocaine with intent to distribute. The district court denied Cardona’s motion to suppress the testimony of a customs agent regarding the interception and inspection of a Federal Express package sent from California to Colombia via Miami and Cardona’s motion to suppress the fruits of the search of two storage lockers rented by Cardona. We affirm. ■
FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS BELOW
In June 1983, Leo Becker, an employee at Algert’s Appliance Company in Bell, California, informed United States Customs Agent Alan Doody that Sergio Urrutia, a fellow employee, had been sending currency and/or cashier’s cheeks to Florida and Colombia on behalf of Cardona and some other Colombian nationals. In mid-July, Agent Doody learned that the Drug Enforcement Agency (“DEA”) was investigating Cardona for suspected involvement in a Colombian drug organization.
On Septembеr 20, 1983, Becker called Agent Doody and informed him that Urrutia was preparing a Federal Express package containing approximately 15 cashier’s checks to be sent to Colombia on behalf of Cardona. Agent Doody established a surveillance outside of Algert’s and observed another Algert’s employee, who Becker believed was assisting Urrutia, walk to a nearby bank and purchase cashier’s checks. Becker told Agent Doody these cashier’s checks were to be included in the Federal Express package being prepared.
Later that day, Agent Doody observed a Federal Express truck pick up two parcels at Algert’s, followed the truck to its next stop, and requested to see the two parcels that had been picked up at Algert’s. One was destined for Florida; the other was to go to Miami via Federal Express and then to Colombia via Tampa Express. Agent Doody opened the package destined for Colombia and photocopied 12 cashier’s checks totalling $20,000. Since the checks were not in bearer form, there was no violation of the currency reporting requirements; therefore, Agent Doody returned the checks to Fеderal Express for shipment.
In March of 1984, DEA agents obtained search warrants for an apartment and two storage lockers rented by Cardona under aliases. The warrants were based on alie *628 gations contained in an affidavit presеnted to the magistrate by DEA Agent Granados. Agent Granados’ affidavit contained circumstantial evidence indicating that Cardona used the storage lockers to store drugs. Large amounts of cocaine, cocaine paraphеrnalia, packaging material, and a loaded rifle were found in the lockers when the search warrant was executed.
At a pretrial hearing, the district court ruled that Agent Doody could testify as to his observations of the contents of the Federal Express package because the search was a valid border search, but that the photocopies could not be introduced because the cashier’s checks were not subject to seizure. With respect to the searches of the storage lockers, the district court denied Cardona’s motion to suppress, stating that the search warrant affidavit disclosed sufficient circumstances to justify the issuance of the warrants for the storage loсkers.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
We review
de novo
the district court’s determination that the warrantless search of the Federal Express package was a valid border search.
See United States v. McConney,
DISCUSSION
I. Validity of Search of Federal Express Package
A. Extended Border Search Doctrine
The district court found that Agent Doody’s search of the Federal Express package constituted a valid exit border search. Under the border search exception, a search may bе initiated without a warrant, probable cause, or even articulable suspicion.
United States v. Ramsey,
A border search need not take place at the actual border. Because of the nature of international travel and transportation, courts have held that border searches may be conducted at places considered the “functional equivalent” of a border.
Almeida-Sanchez v. United States,
In the present case, the search of the Federal Express package did not occur at the actual border, but rather 3,000 miles from the border and twenty-four hours before the scheduled border crossing. Consequently, if the search is to be upheld, it must either have been conducted at the functional equivalent of the border or have constituted a valid extended border search. We have recently recognized the difficulty of making sharp distinctions between searches at the functional equivalent of the border and extended border searches.
United States v. Alfonso,
The leading case in this circuit on extended border searches is
Alexander v. United States,
Where ... a search for contraband ... is not made at or in the immediate vicinity оf the point of international border crossing, the legality of the search must be tested by a determination whether the totality of the surrounding circumstances, including the time and distance elapsed as well as the manner and extent of surveillanсe, are such to convince the fact finder with reasonable certainty that any contraband which might be found in or on the vehicle at the time of search was aboard the vehicle at the time of entry into the jurisdiction of the United Statеs. Any search by Customs officials which meets this test is properly called a “border search.”
Alexander,
The search in the present case satisfies the
Alexander
totality of the circumstances test. When the parcel was placed in the custody of Federal Express agents, it was all but certain that the pаrcel’s condition would remain unchanged until it crossed the United States border.
Cf. United States v. King,
In addition, Agent Doody’s search of the parcel was supported by reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. Leo Becker, Cardona’s co-employee, had informed Doody that another employee, Sergio Urrutia, had been sending currency or cashier’s checks to Florida and Colombia on behalf of Cаrdona and others. Doody later learned that the DEA was investigating Cardona for suspected involvement in a Colombian drug organization. Together with Doody’s observations, these facts established a reasonable suspicion that the pаrcel contained cashier’s checks for the purchase of narcotics.
B. Fourth Amendment Reasonableness Requirement
The fourth amendment requires that a valid exit border search be conducted in a “reasonable” manner.
Des Jardins,
As the search of the Federal Express package was a valid extended border search, its initiation was reasonаble. It follows that, as the district court held, Agent Doody’s Observations during the search are admissible evidence. The district court found, however, that Agent Doody’s photocopies of the cashier’s checks must be suppressed. We agree. Whеn Agent Doody opened the parcel, he discovered that its contents were not subject to seizure. Nonetheless, he photocopied the cashier’s checks before returning them to Federal Express for shipment. Because this seizure and detention of the checks was unjustified, it did not comport with the fourth amendment’s reasonableness requirement. The district court was therefore correct in concluding that the photocopies are inadmissible.
Cardona contends that the district court erred in ruling that Agent Doody could testify about what he observed during his search of the package because its
*630
contents were not subject to seizure. However, evidence which is obtained by means sufficiently distinguishаble from an illegal source is admissible.
Segura v. United States,
— U.S. —,
II. Probable Cause to Search Storage Lockers
Cardona concedes the affidavit contained sufficient information to justify the search of his apartment. However, he contends the affidavit did not establish probable cause to search the two self-storage lockers he rented.
To sustain the warrants in this case, Agent Granados’ affidavit must cоntain sufficient evidence to support an inference that drugs might be found in Cardona’s self-storage lockers.
United States v. Foster,
In the search warrant affidavit, Agent Granados briefly outlined his 13 years of experience as a DEA agent, described certain patterns of behavior he had found to be typical of members of Colombian drug organizations, and recounted numerous incidents which indicated Cardona was a drug dealer and which linked his apartment to his drug business. Agent Granados stated that members of Colombian drug organizations typically keep drugs in self-storage lockers, like those rented by Cardona, which are within driving distance from their apartment. Although Agent Granados did not state that DEA agents observed Cardona removing anything from or placing anything into the lockers, he did dеscribe a number of events and transactions which strongly suggested Cardona was exchanging packages of drugs that had been stored in the subject lockers. Therefore, the magistrate reasonably concluded that it was probable that evidence would be found in the storage lockers.
AFFIRMED.