466 U.S. 109, 104 S. Ct. 1652, 80 L. Ed. 2d 85 (1984)
On May 1, 1981, employees at the Federal Express office in Minneapolis-St. Paul examined a damaged package that had been shipped from Miami to Des Moines, Iowa.1 The package was addressed to Mr. and Mrs. James Jacobsen.2 Following company policy for insurance claims, the supervisor and office manager opened the cardboard box wrapped in brown paper, revealing a tube made of silver tape containing four zip-lock plastic bags with approximately six and a half ounces of white powder.3
The employees notified the Drug Enforcement Administration.4 When the first federal agent arrived, the box was open with a hole punched in its side.5 The agent removed the four plastic bags from the tube, opened each bag, and removed a trace of the white substance with a knife blade for a field test that identified the substance as cocaine.6 The agents then resealed the package and arranged for a controlled delivery to the Jacobsen residence.7
Respondents James and Donna Jacobsen accepted the package at their home.8 Federal agents executed a search warrant, discovering additional plastic bags containing a total of 22 grams of cocaine.9 The Jacobsens were arrested and indicted for possession of cocaine with intent to distribute.10
The District Court denied the Jacobsens' motion to suppress the evidence.11 After a bench trial on stipulated facts, they were convicted.12 The Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reversed the convictions, and the Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the Fourth Amendment issues.13
Whether the removal of the plastic bags from the tube and the visual inspection of their contents by government agents constituted a search within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment?14
The Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable searches when government action infringes an expectation of privacy that society recognizes as reasonable.15 When private parties have already opened a package and exposed its contents, subsequent government examination of what the private party freely revealed does not constitute a new search. The privacy expectation has already been frustrated by private conduct.16
No. Federal Express employees opened the damaged package pursuant to company policy, removed the tube, extracted the four zip-lock plastic bags, and observed the white powder inside the innermost bag before any federal agent arrived.17 The first DEA agent then removed the bags from the tube and visually inspected their contents, learning nothing beyond the information the employees had already obtained and communicated.18 The package remained unsealed with a hole in its side, and the employees had invited the agent to examine the contents at their office.19
The agents' removal of the plastic bags and visual inspection did not constitute a search under the Fourth Amendment because the private search had already compromised any legitimate privacy interest in the package's contents.20
Whether the chemical test that revealed the white powder was cocaine constituted a search within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment?21
A chemical field test that discloses only whether a substance is cocaine compromises no legitimate expectation of privacy.22 The test reveals no arguably private fact beyond the presence or absence of contraband, an interest Congress has declared illegitimate.23 The test is analogous to a canine sniff that exposes nothing else.24
No. After the private employees had already exposed the white powder, the DEA agent removed a trace amount from each of the four bags. He performed a field test using three test tubes that produced a color sequence confirming the substance was cocaine.25 The test destroyed only a minute quantity that respondents could not have detected.26 It revealed nothing about the powder other than its identity as cocaine.27
The chemical field test did not constitute a search within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment.28
Related opinions on this issue
Justice White concurred in the judgment and in the opinion of the Court.29 He emphasized that the chemical test was indistinguishable in nature and purpose from the canine sniff upheld in United States v. Place because both techniques disclose only the presence or absence of contraband and no other information.30 White noted that such limited investigative techniques do not compromise any legitimate privacy interest and therefore are not searches under the Fourth Amendment.31
He wrote separately to underscore the parallel between the field test and the dog sniff approved in Place.32
Joined by Justice Marshall
Justice Brennan, joined by Justice Marshall, dissented.33 He argued that the chemical test constituted a seizure because it destroyed a quantity of the substance, thereby intruding upon respondents' possessory interest.34 Brennan contended that the majority's focus on the limited information revealed by the test was flawed.35 He argued that the destruction of even a minute amount required a warrant when the agents had already asserted dominion over the package.36
He maintained that the test went beyond a mere visual inspection and could not be dismissed as insignificant.37
Whether the warrantless seizure of the package by the federal agents violated the Fourth Amendment?38
A warrantless seizure of property is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment when supported by probable cause to believe the item contains contraband and when exigent circumstances, such as the risk that the package will be lost or its contents destroyed, make it impractical to obtain a warrant beforehand.39
No. The agents possessed probable cause based on the employees' observations of the white powder and the positive field test confirming it was cocaine.4041 They then seized the package by directing Federal Express to reseal it and effect a controlled delivery to the Jacobsen residence.42 This occurred rather than allowing the original shipment to proceed unsupervised.43 There was a risk that the contraband would be lost or destroyed if a warrant had to be obtained first.44
The warrantless seizure of the package was justified by probable cause and exigent circumstances and therefore did not violate the Fourth Amendment.45