People v. Blair CA6

Good Law
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaAugust 31, 2015H041033California3,273 words

Opinion

Opinion

DISCUSSION

On appeal, defendant argues reversal is necessary because the court erred when it partially granted his suppression motion. He claims that the FedEx employee who initially opened the package was acting as an agent for the police. Therefore, a search warrant was necessary. For the reasons set forth below, we find no merit in this argument. 1. The Motion to Suppress a. Background Defendant filed a motion to suppress the evidence found in the intercepted FedEx package. He argued that the search was illegal, because it was undertaken without a warrant. The People opposed the motion, maintaining that the FedEx employee opened the package as a private citizen, so his actions did not implicate the Fourth Amendment. At the suppression hearing, San Jose Police Department Officer Tyler Krauel testified regarding the circumstances of the package’s discovery. On April 8, 2011, he participated in a parcel interdiction program at a FedEx facility located in San Jose. Also present was a FedEx senior security specialist, Delbert Tullos. Officer Krauel explained the typical process of the parcel interdiction program. While at the FedEx facility, he would watch packages go by on the…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.