Facts
- Federal Express employees, following company procedures, opened a damaged package and found a tube containing four nested plastic bags; the innermost bag contained a white powder.
- The employees notified the DEA and repacked the items in the package.
- A DEA agent arrived, removed the tube and bags, visually inspected the contents, opened the bags, took a trace amount of powder, and performed a field test indicating cocaine.
- Agents obtained a warrant to search the destination address, leading to the Jacobsens’ arrest and indictment for possession with intent to distribute.
- The district court denied suppression and the defendants were convicted.
- The Eighth Circuit reversed, reasoning the field test significantly exceeded the prior private search and required a warrant.
Issues
- Whether a government agent’s reopening and visual inspection of a package previously opened by private employees is a Fourth Amendment “search” when it reveals nothing beyond what the private search already disclosed.
- Whether a warrantless chemical field test of suspected narcotics constitutes a Fourth Amendment “search.”
- Whether the agent’s temporary dominion and control over the package and contents was an unreasonable Fourth Amendment “seizure.”
Decision
- The Supreme Court reversed the Eighth Circuit and upheld admission of the evidence.
- The agent’s reinspection of the package and bags was not a “search” because it learned nothing beyond the earlier private search and did not invade a legitimate expectation of privacy.
- The field test was not a “search” because it could reveal only whether the substance was contraband, and no other private fact.
- The agent’s control over the package constituted a “seizure,” but it was reasonable given what was already known about the contents.
Legal Principles
- The Fourth Amendment applies to governmental action, not private searches; private conduct, even if intrusive, does not itself trigger Fourth Amendment protections.
- When a private party has already exposed an item or information, the government may replicate that exposure without a warrant so long as it does not exceed the scope of the private search.
- A chemical test that discloses only the presence or absence of contraband, and no other information, does not compromise a legitimate privacy interest and may fall outside the definition of a Fourth Amendment “search.”
- A seizure may be reasonable when facts already known to officers make it apparent the item contains contraband and the intrusion is limited.
Conclusion
The Court held that agents may, without a warrant, repeat the results of a prior private search and conduct a limited narcotics field test because these actions do not invade a legitimate expectation of privacy, and that the related seizure of the package was reasonable under the circumstances.