## Facts

- Iowa narcotics officers received information from a Phoenix police officer that a Federal Express package addressed to Ronald Foster Jacobs was suspicious based on packaging, weight, timing near shipment cutoff, and delivery by someone other than the listed sender who did not know the ZIP code.
- Officers intercepted the package at a Federal Express office and conducted a canine sniff by placing it among other packages.
- The first drug-detection dog showed interest in the package and not in the others, but did not give a trained “alert.”
- An officer applied for a warrant to open the package, describing the dog’s interest but not stating that the dog did not formally alert.
- A magistrate judge issued a warrant to search the package.
- After the warrant issued, a second drug-detection dog did not show interest in or alert to the package.
- Officers executed the warrant, opened the package, and found cocaine.
- Officers resealed the package, completed a controlled delivery to Jacobs’s residence, then obtained and executed a second warrant to search the residence, seizing additional evidence and arresting Jacobs.
- Jacobs moved to suppress evidence from the package and residence, arguing the sniff and the warrant affidavit violated the Fourth Amendment; the district court denied suppression, and a jury convicted him of possession with intent to distribute cocaine.

## Issues

1. Whether the canine sniff of the Federal Express package required reasonable suspicion, and whether officers had sufficient grounds to conduct it.
2. Whether the warrant affidavit contained deliberate or reckless falsehoods or material omissions under *Franks v. Delaware* based on how it described the dog’s reaction and omitted the later negative second sniff.
3. Whether probable cause to search the package existed under the totality of the circumstances even if the omitted information were included, and whether the later residential search was tainted.

## Decision

- The Eighth Circuit affirmed the conviction and upheld the denial of the suppression motions.
- The court concluded the investigative steps surrounding the canine sniff did not violate the Fourth Amendment on these facts.
- The court held Jacobs failed to meet the *Franks* standard because he did not show intentional or reckless deception, and any omissions were not material to probable cause.
- The court held that, even accounting for the lack of a formal alert and the second dog’s negative response, the affidavit still established probable cause to search the package.
- Because the package search warrant was valid, the controlled delivery and subsequent residential search were not fruits of an illegal search.

## Legal Principles

- A canine sniff of a package in a commercial setting is treated as a limited investigative technique; officers may proceed based on specific, articulable facts indicating suspicion.
- Under *Franks v. Delaware*, suppression based on a warrant affidavit requires a substantial showing that the affiant knowingly or recklessly made a false statement or omitted material information, and that correcting the affidavit would eliminate probable cause.
- Probable cause is evaluated under the totality of the circumstances as a practical, common-sense determination; no single factor (including a formal canine alert) is necessarily dispositive.
- A negative investigative result occurring after warrant issuance does not automatically negate probable cause where other facts still support a fair probability of contraband.

## Conclusion

The court held that the intercepted-package investigation and the warrant process complied with the Fourth Amendment, that the affidavit’s description of the canine reaction and omission of a later negative sniff did not amount to a material *Franks* violation, and that probable cause supported the package warrant, leaving the later controlled delivery and residential search untainted.


United States v. Jacobs, 986 F.2d 1231 (8th Cir. 1993)