United States v. Gonzalez, No. 14-1422 (8th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this CaseYoung approached an Iowa UPS truck to give the driver a package, anxiously offering to pay with cash. The driver directed Young to a dropoff location. Returning to that location, he saw a package from Young’s address. Because of Young’s behavior, the package’s shape, and the need for transport by plane, the driver contacted a supervisor, who opened the package and found cash wrapped in foil. UPS consulted local officer Weber, then sent the package to its intended recipient, Gonzalez, in Yuma, Arizona. Weber contacted Yuma police, who saw Gonzalez retrieve the package. Two days later UPS had a package from Gonzalez addressed to Young. A drug-detection dog handler had UPS place Gonzalez’s package with three similar packages without telling him or Weber which one came from Gonzalez. The dog nudged the third package and scratched at the fourth. On second and third passes, the dog showed no interest in the third package but scratched at the fourth. Weber learned that this package came from Gonzalez, took possession, and obtained a search warrant the same day. The package contained methamphetamine. Yuma police obtained warrants, arrested Gonzalez, and searched his home, finding marijuana, a rifle, and ammunition. Gonzalez was Young’s nephew. Indicted for conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine, 21 U.S.C. 841(a)(1); 846, Gonzalez unsuccessfully moved to suppress. Gonzalez conditionally pleaded guilty; the court sentenced Gonzalez to 168 months’ imprisonment. The Eighth Circuit affirmed denial of the motion and the sentence.
Court Description: Criminal case - Criminal law and sentencing.UPS employees were not acting as government agents, and the search they conducted of a package was a private search and did not implicate the Fourth Amendment; temporary seizure of a second package was based on a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity; duration of seizure (three and one-half hours) was not unreasonable; drug dog alert provided an adequate basis for issuance of a search warrant; omission from the warrant application of the fact that the drug dog initially also showed interest in another package was not the kind of reckless disregard of the truth which requires a Franks hearing; no error in denying defendant's request for a two-level reduction under Guidelines Sec. 3E1.1(a) for acceptance of responsibility; district court properly weighed the 3553(a)factors and considered defendant's request for a downward variance; disparity between defendant's sentence and a co-defendant's was justified by defendant's escalating pattern of criminal conduct and the fact that he was on probation when he committed this offense.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.