United States v. Jacobsen Case Brief: Fourth Amendment Search, Seizure, and Privacy Expectations

Case Brief: United States v. Jacobsen

Court: Supreme Court of the United States
Citation: 466 U.S. 109 (1984)
Argued: October 30, 1983
Decided: January 17, 1984

---

Facts:

In United States v. Jacobsen, the defendant, Jacobsen, was involved in a case where Federal Express mistakenly delivered a package containing what appeared to be narcotics to a warehouse. The package had been addressed to Jacobsen, but it was improperly delivered. A Federal Express employee suspected the contents of the package and called the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA). A DEA agent arrived, inspected the package, and confirmed it contained a white powder, which was later identified as cocaine.

The DEA agents did not obtain a search warrant before inspecting the package. The agents conducted a field test, which confirmed the substance was cocaine, and subsequently opened the package and seized the drugs. Jacobsen moved to suppress the evidence, arguing that the search and seizure violated the Fourth Amendment.

Issues:

1. Whether the initial search of the package by the DEA agents violated Jacobsen's Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable searches and seizures.
2. Whether the later opening of the package and the testing of its contents also violated the Fourth Amendment.

Holding:

The Supreme Court held that the initial search and subsequent seizure of the package did not violate Jacobsen's Fourth Amendment rights. The Court ruled that the Fourth Amendment applies only to searches and seizures that are unreasonable. In this case, the Court found that the DEA's actions did not constitute an unreasonable search or seizure, as the agents had a reasonable suspicion that the package contained contraband, and their actions were based on limited, non-invasive inspection.

Legal Reasoning:

• No Expectation of Privacy in the Package:
  The Court reasoned that the Fourth Amendment protects individuals from unreasonable searches and seizures, but it does not apply to situations where there is no legitimate expectation of privacy. Since the package had been mistakenly delivered to the warehouse and was under the control of federal authorities, Jacobsen had no reasonable expectation of privacy in the contents of the package once it was turned over to the DEA.

• Inspection of the Package:
  The Court noted that the initial search by the DEA agents—briefly looking at the package and performing a field test on its contents—was not a full-scale search that required a warrant. The agents only sought to confirm their suspicion that the package contained contraband, which was justified by the reasonable suspicion that arose from the delivery mistake and the employee's report.

• Limited Search Doctrine:
  The Court held that the inspection of the package and the field test were minimal and did not constitute an unreasonable search under the Fourth Amendment. The agents had reasonable suspicion based on the delivery error and the employee’s tip, and their actions were a reasonable step to confirm whether the package contained illegal drugs.

• Exclusion of Evidence:
  As for the opening of the package and the full search of its contents, the Court noted that once the field test confirmed the presence of cocaine, the subsequent search and seizure were lawful under the plain view doctrine. The agents had probable cause to believe that the contents of the package were illegal narcotics, and they were permitted to seize the package based on that probable cause.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court ruled that the actions of the DEA agents in inspecting the package and performing the field test did not violate Jacobsen’s Fourth Amendment rights. The search was reasonable and did not require a warrant, and the drugs discovered were admissible as evidence. The Court affirmed the judgment of the lower court, holding that the seizure of the cocaine was lawful.

---

List of Cases Cited:

1. Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) - Established that brief investigatory stops are permissible under the Fourth Amendment with reasonable suspicion.
2. Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967) - Defined the expectation of privacy test under the Fourth Amendment.
3. Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443 (1971) - Discussed the plain view doctrine and the conditions under which evidence may be seized without a warrant.

Similar Cases:

1. United States v. Place, 462 U.S. 696 (1983) - Addressed the temporary detention of luggage by law enforcement and the requirements for reasonable suspicion.
2. Florida v. Bostick, 501 U.S. 429 (1991) - Involved the permissibility of police searches and questioned when consent is voluntary during a police encounter.
3. United States v. Drayton, 536 U.S. 194 (2002) - Examined the voluntary consent in encounters between police and individuals.
4. California v. Acevedo, 500 U.S. 565 (1991) - Concerned the warrantless search of a vehicle and the extent of privacy expectations under the Fourth Amendment.