State v. Barnthouse, 350 P. 3d 536 - Or: Court of Appeals 2015

This is pretty interesting. A guy won his appeal in Oregon state court after a pot CD based on some ambiguities in search and seizure law.

I think this is one of those cases where the guy got lucky because the police and postal inspector didn't really follow procedure and the judges actually ruled in the kid's favor. The guy who got the CD is a white guy living in a pretty nice neighborhood - higher rents, young people. *The police were too lazy to get a warrant so they did a knock and talk and the guy consented to search - not sure if that is a CD or not. So his dad probably got him a really strong attorney. He won his appeal. This ruling happened right as Oregon has made recreational pot legal so that might have something to do with it also.

Read through the first few pages, extremely detailed about how the Postal Inspector and Police work at the airport hub and the daily routine of detaining packages. They pull about 30 or 40 a day and will put the K-9 dogs on them, but they detain whether the K-9 hits it or not. The appeal quotes testimony from the inspectors, etc.

Also, that Darknetmarket Attorney guy who posted here a couple days ago telling people that there is no database for names and to use fake names. That guy was like Carl Mark Force Jr, II. having a laugh over lunch or something. That's absolutely a bad idea. Look up the case law on google scholar, the postal inspector looks at the police and address database for every detained package. They check that. Express Packages.

http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/docs/A153361.pdf


Comments


[2 Points] None:

the fake name thing - yeah, if they check your name against a database and see it isn't legitimate they are going to be very suspicious, but your package of drugs was already pulled for closer inspection so its not like you are escaping dodging a bullet there... its just the final nail in the coffin which they use to open your pack. people recieve shit in fake names all the time, it adds a layer of deniability. i know they are more suspicious of tracked express packs but that alone is a weak argument for profiling a pack. there are probably a million express packs of legitimate goods being sent worldwide every month...


[1 Points] qabadai:

The "knock and talk" practice is interesting in that they didn't even apply for a warrant (despite the drug dog hitting on it), just went and asked for consent.


[1 Points] youheree:

A lot of good info, thanks.

Not answering or saying "Do you have a warrant? Come back with one" probably would have saved this dude.


[1 Points] None:

Damn, excellent find!