State v. Ressler - No. 20040327
Case Summary
Dale Ressler appeals an order deferring imposition of sentence, which stems from Ressler entering a conditional plea of guilty to the charge of possession of drug paraphernalia. The conditional plea agreement permits Ressler to appeal a matter regarding the suppression of evidence.
Ressler delivered a box for interstate shipment to a shipping store in Mandan. The owner of the store became suspicious of Ressler and opened the package. The owner discovered numerous magazines, some of which had scotch tape around their three open sides. The owner cut one of the magazines open and found money in various pages throughout the magazine. The owner also examined a second magazine, which was not taped, but it did not contain any currency. The owner called the Mandan Police Department. An officer arrived at the store and observed what the store owner had uncovered. The officer proceeded to conduct a canine sniff on the package at a law enforcement center, and the canine "hit" on the relevant box. Police proceeded to inventory the full contents of the box by opening the remaining magazines and discovered $9,800. There are conflicting assertions regarding whether the officer "dug" further into the package in the time between the store owner displaying what he had found and the officer's final inventory search. Police conducted a garbage search at Ressler's residence and found various items of drug paraphernalia. Police obtained a search warrant for Ressler's residence and uncovered additional drug paraphernalia. The State then charged Ressler with possession of drug paraphernalia.
On appeal, Ressler argues the steps taken by police with regard to his shipment violated his constitutional right against unreasonable searches and seizures. Ressler claims a sender of a package or box retains an expectation of privacy in his parcel, which was impermissibly violated in this case. Ressler raises three primary arguments in this regard. First, he claims the initial government seizure of his package was without probable cause or a search warrant and, thus, was unreasonable given his continuing expectation of privacy extending beyond the limited, private-party search that occurred. Second, Ressler argues the government search of his package, i.e., the alleged "digging" around, was unreasonable because of the absence of a search warrant or probable cause to search. And third, even after establishing probable cause to search, presumably via the canine sniff, the government nonetheless failed to obtain a search warrant before proceeding with its full inventory search. Ressler does not believe an inventory search should be used as a subterfuge for criminal investigation. Finally, Ressler argues the evidence from his trash and home, which was derived from the illegal seizure and search of his package, should be suppressed.
In contrast, the State argues the police conduct in this case did not violate Ressler's constitutional rights. Accordingly, the State believes suppression of the evidence discovered during the search of Ressler's home is unnecessary. The State highlights that the initial search of Ressler's package was carried out by a private actor, the owner of the shipping store, and not a government official. Such a search does not implicate constitutionally protected expectations of privacy. Further, the State argues removal of the package from the shipping store to the law enforcement center for canine testing was constitutionally permissibly and based upon the reasonable suspicion gained at the shipping store. After the canine identified Ressler's package, the officer then had probable cause to suspect the box and an appropriate inventory search followed. As the events leading up to the garbage pull and the issuance of the search warrant for Ressler's residence were in accordance with constitutional protections, there is no need to suppress the evidence discovered in Ressler's home, it is claimed.