United States v. J C Collins ( 2007 )


Menu:
  •                      United States Court of Appeals
    FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
    ___________
    No. 06-3219
    ___________
    United States of America,                *
    *
    Plaintiff - Appellee,      * Appeal from the United States
    * District Court for the
    v.                                * Eastern District of Arkansas.
    *
    J. C. Collins,                           *      [UNPUBLISHED]
    *
    Defendant - Appellant.     *
    ___________
    Submitted: May 17, 2007
    Filed: June 14, 2007
    ___________
    Before WOLLMAN, BRIGHT, and JOHN R. GIBSON, Circuit Judges.
    ___________
    PER CURIAM.
    A grand jury indicted J.C. Collins for conspiracy to distribute more than 500
    grams of methamphetamine in violation of 
    21 U.S.C. § 846
    , money laundering in
    violation of 
    18 U.S.C. § 1956
    (a)(1)(A)(i), and conspiracy to launder drug proceeds in
    violation of 
    18 U.S.C. § 1956
    (h). Prior to his trial, Collins filed a motion to suppress
    the currency seized both from his person and a Federal Express package addressed to
    him. The district court1 denied the motion to suppress and the jury returned a guilty
    1
    The Honorable James M. Moody, United States District Judge for the Eastern
    District of Arkansas.
    verdict against Collins on all counts. The district judge imposed a sentence on Collins
    of life imprisonment. Collins now appeals from the conviction, raising the sole issue
    of the trial court’s denial of his motion to suppress. For the following reasons, we
    affirm.
    Collins argues that police unlawfully seized from a Mail Boxes Etc. store a
    Federal Express package addressed to him by removing it to the loading dock and
    performing a canine sniff. He also contends that police lacked reasonable suspicion
    to seize the package after the dog alerted to the presence of contraband. These
    arguments lack merit. We assume, without deciding, that removal of the package
    constituted a seizure for Fourth Amendment purposes, but conclude reasonable
    suspicion supported the removal. Reasonable suspicion exists when there is sufficient
    evidence at the time of the seizure for a reasonable officer to suspect that the package
    contained contraband. United States v. Zacher, 
    465 F.3d 336
    , 338 (8th Cir. 2006).
    In the instant case, prior to arriving at the store, police (a) understood that a
    known drug supplier (the sender) was sending cash, for at least the second time in
    consecutive weeks, via Federal Express, (b) knew this was a common method of
    exchanging drug sale proceeds, and (c) possessed reliable information that Collins,
    also a known drug supplier, had previously used Western Union for such purpose.
    This information created reasonable suspicion to justify the brief seizure, if any, of the
    package on the loading dock and the canine’s subsequent alert served to permit seizing
    the package while the officers obtained a warrant for its search. See 
    id. at 339
    (finding dog’s alert created reasonable suspicion to permit seizure).
    Collins also argues that on October 13, 2003, police unlawfully seized
    approximately $11,000 in cash from his person at the Little Rock airport. Collins
    maintains that although he consented to a pat-down search, the incriminating nature
    of the money found during the pat-down was not immediately apparent. We disagree.
    -2-
    Police had ample information that Collins had been traveling in central
    Arkansas collecting money from drug debts and would be flying from Little Rock to
    California with the proceeds on his person. Considering the information police knew
    at the time of the search, it became immediately apparent that the approximately
    $11,000 in cash on Collins’s person was incriminating. See United States v. Bustos-
    Torres, 
    396 F.3d 935
    , 945 (8th Cir. 2005) (concluding wad of paper money felt during
    pat-down search immediately apparent as incriminating considering circumstances
    leading to stop).
    For these reasons, the district court properly rejected the motion to suppress.
    ______________________________
    -3-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 06-3219

Judges: Bright, Gibson, John, Per Curiam, Wollman

Filed Date: 6/14/2007

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024