This opinion will be unpublished and
may not be cited except as provided by
Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2014).
STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
A16-0056
State of Minnesota,
Respondent,
vs.
Huy Vu Le,
Appellant.
Filed October 31, 2016
Affirmed
Kirk, Judge
Dakota County District Court
File No. 19HA-CR-13-3156
Lori Swanson, Attorney General, St. Paul, Minnesota; and
James C. Backstrom, Dakota County Attorney, Chip Granger, Assistant County Attorney,
Hastings, Minnesota (for respondent)
Robert J. Shane, Shane Law Office, Minneapolis, Minnesota (for appellant)
Considered and decided by Kirk, Presiding Judge; Bjorkman, Judge; and Jesson,
Judge.
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
KIRK, Judge
Appellant Huy Vu Le challenges the district court’s denial of his pretrial motion to
suppress evidence, asserting that a police officer’s removal of an airmailed package from
an airport conveyor belt for purposes of a canine sniff constituted a seizure under the Fourth
Amendment and that the officer lacked reasonable, articulable suspicion. We affirm.
FACTS
On July 9, 2013, a FedEx employee contacted Officer Mark Meyer, a Minneapolis-
St. Paul Airport Narcotics Investigator, regarding a suspicious package discovered at
FedEx’s airport facility. Based on his 15 years of training and experience in working parcel
interdiction, Officer Meyer found the package to be suspicious. Next, Officer Meyer
placed the package with 15-20 other packages and allowed Brio, a trained narcotics-
detection dog, to inspect the packages. Brio alerted to the presence of narcotics in the
package. Officer Meyer obtained a search warrant for the package and discovered that it
contained marijuana starter plants. Officers conducted a controlled delivery, and appellant
assumed custody of the package. After additional investigation, officers obtained and
executed a search warrant for appellant’s residence where they discovered a marijuana
grow operation.
Appellant was charged with one count of third-degree controlled-substance crime
and one count of fifth-degree controlled-substance crime. Appellant moved to dismiss
based on lack of probable cause and to suppress the evidence, which the district court
denied. Next, appellant stipulated to the prosecution’s case to obtain appellate review of
the district court’s denial of appellant’s motion to suppress. See Minn. R. Crim. P. 26.01,
subd. 4. By agreement of the parties, the third-degree controlled-substance charge was
dismissed. The district court found appellant guilty of fifth-degree controlled-substance
crime. This appeal follows.
2
DECISION
In reviewing the district court’s order on a motion to suppress evidence, an appellate
court reviews the court’s legal determinations de novo and its factual findings for clear
error. State v. Milton, 821 N.W.2d 789, 798 (Minn. 2012).
Appellant argues a seizure occurred when Officer Meyer removed appellant’s
package from the airport conveyor belt for purposes of a canine sniff. In light of the
Minnesota Supreme Court’s holding in State v. Eichers, 853 N.W.2d 114 (Minn. 2014),
we disagree and affirm the district court’s order. Both the United States and Minnesota
Constitutions protect the “right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers,
and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.” U.S. Const. amend. IV; Minn.
Const. art. I, § 10. We will analyze these provisions together because the United States
and Minnesota Constitutions share identical language and appellant does not assert that the
Minnesota Constitution provides greater protection here. Eichers, 853 N.W.2d at 118-19
(citation omitted). “Thus, to determine if there was an unreasonable seizure, we must first
determine whether the package was seized by [Officer] Meyer when he removed it from
the airport conveyor belt and detained it for a dog sniff.” Eichers, 853 N.W.2d at 119. “If
the package was not seized, further analysis of whether the detention was unreasonable is
not required.” Id.
Here, the facts at issue are indistinguishable from those presented in Eichers. The
Eichers court concluded that the controlling test for whether there is a seizure is whether
there is “meaningful interference with an individual’s possessory interests in that
3
property,” but that “dominion and control without a meaningful interference with a
possessory interest is insufficient to establish a seizure.” Id. at 120 (quoting United States
v. Jacobsen, 466 U.S. 109, 113, 104 S. Ct. 1652, 1656 (1984)). The Eichers court
determined that no seizure had occurred because there was no infringement on the
defendant’s right to a timely delivery or his interest in the carrier’s custody of the package.
Id. at 123.
Appellant argues this court should ignore “the issues of technical custody or delay
in the delivery of the package” because they were not analyzed under Jacobsen. This
argument misconstrues this court’s function. See State v. Ward, 580 N.W.2d 67, 74 (Minn.
App. 1998) (“[W]e are not in position to overturn established supreme court precedent.”)
(citations omitted). Therefore, we conclude that no seizure occurred because there was no
meaningful interference with appellant’s possessory interests in the package. Eichers, 853
N.W.2d at 120. Because no seizure occurred, we need not address the remaining issue of
reasonable, articulable suspicion.
Affirmed.
4