UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Anthony Oh YOUNG, Defendant-Appellant

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
98 Daily Journal DAR 9643, 98 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 6987, 153 F.3d 1079 (1998)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

A search by a private party is not subject to the Fourth Amendment unless that party is acting as an instrument or agent of the government. A private party acts as a government agent only if the government knew of and acquiesced in the intrusive conduct and the private party's primary intent was to assist law enforcement rather than to further its own legitimate purposes.

Facts:

Anthony Oh Young tendered a cardboard box to a FedEx facility at the Los Angeles International Airport for shipment to Honolulu, Hawaii.
A FedEx security officer became suspicious of the package because the airbill was missing the sender's phone number, the box smelled of pepper, and the shipping fee was paid in cash.
Pursuant to FedEx's corporate security policy, the officer opened the box and discovered packets of a substance he believed was methamphetamine.
The package was resealed and forwarded to FedEx's hub in Memphis, Tennessee, where another FedEx security officer examined it.
After the package had been opened and examined twice by its own employees, FedEx contacted the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA).
FedEx's security policy was established for its own business purposes, primarily to protect its employees, facilities, and customers' packages, including preventing theft and ensuring safety from hazardous materials on aircraft.

Procedural Posture:

Anthony Oh Young filed a motion to suppress evidence in the United States District Court, arguing the search of his package by FedEx violated the Fourth Amendment.
The district court (the court of first instance) denied Young's motion to suppress.
Young entered a conditional guilty plea to attempted possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine, reserving the right to appeal the district court's adverse ruling on his suppression motion.
Young (appellant) appealed the denial of his motion to suppress to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, with the United States as the appellee.

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does a search of a package by a private shipping carrier, conducted pursuant to its own internal security policy and for its own business purposes without prior government knowledge, constitute a governmental search subject to the Fourth Amendment?

Opinions:

Majority - Per Curiam

No. A search of a package by a private shipping carrier, conducted pursuant to its own internal security policy and for its own business purposes without prior government knowledge, does not constitute a governmental search subject to the Fourth Amendment. The Fourth Amendment limits searches by the government, not by a private party, unless that party acts as an 'instrument or agent' of the government. Applying the two-part test, the court found no evidence that the government knew of or acquiesced in FedEx's search; FedEx acted on its own initiative and only contacted the DEA after its employees had already opened the package twice. Furthermore, FedEx conducted the search to further its own legitimate business purposes—namely, ensuring the safety and security of its employees and property—not with the primary intent of assisting law enforcement. The company was motivated by concerns over employee theft of valuable drugs, potential retribution against couriers, and the flammability of such substances on its aircraft. Therefore, FedEx was not acting as a government agent, and the search was a private one not covered by the Fourth Amendment.

Analysis:

This case reinforces the private search doctrine and clarifies its application to the operations of private shipping carriers. The decision establishes that a company's internal security policy, even one that leads to the discovery of contraband and cooperation with law enforcement, does not convert private action into government action absent prior government knowledge or a primary intent to aid law enforcement. This precedent gives private carriers significant latitude to inspect packages for their own business reasons, such as safety and loss prevention, without triggering Fourth Amendment scrutiny. Consequently, evidence discovered during such private searches is generally admissible in criminal prosecutions.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Anthony Oh YOUNG, Defendant-Appellant (1998)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"

Premium Feature