LAW.coLAW.co

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jack W. TRIPP, Defendant-Appellant

United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit1972-10-24No. No. 72-1629
468 F.2d 569

Summary

Holding. The warrantless seizure of the currency did not violate the Fourth Amendment because the initial discovery resulted from a lawful private search by an airline employee, and the money was in plain view when the Postal Inspectors seized it while lawfully on the premises. The conviction is affirmed.

Jack Tripp, a former Postmaster, was convicted of possessing property stolen from U.S. mails after $80,000 in currency went missing from a Fairbanks post office. Six months later, an Alaska Airlines employee discovered money hidden in the backing of a framed picture in a package addressed to a former Postal Inspector and shipped by Tripp. The employee notified the FBI, which directed him to record serial numbers that matched the stolen currency. Postal Inspectors then took possession of the package without obtaining a warrant.

Tripp argued the seizure violated the Fourth Amendment because no warrant was obtained. The court rejected this argument, finding that the initial inspection of the package was conducted by a private airline employee, not government agents, and therefore did not constitute a governmental invasion of privacy. Once the money was discovered and visible, the Postal Inspectors lawfully seized it without a warrant because it was in plain view and they were lawfully present on the airline premises.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

  • Whether a warrantless seizure of property violates the Fourth Amendment when discovered through private party inspection
  • Application of the plain view doctrine to contraband discovered by government agents after lawful private search
  • Whether government agents require a warrant to seize contraband that is plainly visible and lawfully discovered

Procedural posture

Tripp appealed his conviction for mail theft, challenging the trial court's denial of his motion to suppress evidence seized without a warrant.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion

majority opinion

SOLOMON, District Judge;

Jack W. Tripp, appellant, was convicted of possession of property stolen from the United States mails (18 U.S.C. § 1708) in a court trial. The sole issue here is whether the trial judge erred in denying Tripp’s motion to suppress evidence seized without a warrant.

The facts are not in dispute. On March 25, 1971, the Federal Reserve Bank in Seattle, Washington, sent by registered mail $80,000 in new ten dollar bills to the Alaska National Bank of Fairbanks. When the money arrived, it was placed in a safe at the Fairbanks, Alaska, Post Office. On the following morning the money was gone.

Six months later, when a ramp serviceman for Alaska Airlines at Fairbanks checked freight for damage, he shook a package and heard what he thought was broken glass. He took the package to the airline agent who saw that it was addressed to Fairbanks Office Supply Co., one of the airline’s large accounts. The agent told the serviceman to open the package and check it for damage. The package contained a framed Norman Rockwell print. When the agent attempted to shake out the broken glass, he found some ten dollar bills protruding from the backing of the frame. When he removed the backing he discovered a substantial number of ten dollar bills. He took the package and its contents to Mr. Westphalen, the air freight supervisor for Alaska Airlines.

The consignee of the package was “Fairbanks Office Supply Co., Attention Bill Sparks.” Mr. Westphalen knew that Sparks was a former Postal Inspector at the Fairbanks Post Office, and he knew that the shipper, Jack Tripp, had formerly been the Postmaster at that post office. He also knew of the postal theft.

Westphalen attempted to call the FBI in Fairbanks and, when unsuccessful, called the FBI in Anchorage. An agent there instructed Westphalen to record the serial numbers of the bills. Postal Inspectors were immediately sent to the airline office to investigate. Mr. Devere, one of the inspectors, was investigating the March robbery. Before he arrived at the airline office, Devere spoke to the FBI agent in Anchorage and was told the circumstances which led to the discovery of the bills. He was also told that some of the serial numbers obtained by Westphalen matched those which were part of the March 25, 1971, inventory at the Seattle Federal Reserve Bank. The Postal Inspectors arrived at the airline offices, signed a delivery receipt for the package and took possession of its contents. Neither the FBI nor the Postal Inspectors obtained a warrant authorizing the seizure of the goods.

Tripp argues that the seizure was unlawful for lack of a proper warrant. His claim is based on cases dealing with unlawful searches [e. g., Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443, 91 S.Ct. 2022, 29 L.Ed.2d 564 (1971); Corngold v. United States, 367 F.2d 1 (9th Cir. 1966)].

The search in the present case was not unlawful. The principal object of the Fourth Amendment is to protect citizens from governmental invasion of privacy. Warden v. Hayden, 387 U.S. 294, 87 S.Ct. 1642, 18 L.Ed.2d 782 (1967). Here neither the FBI nor the Postal Inspectors instigated this inspection. Tripp’s “privacy” was invaded, not by government, but by the private inspection of his package by the airline. He does not question the right of the airline to inspect his package. The discovery of the contraband was the inadvertent result of a lawful private search. The money was in plain view after the package was opened.

Mr. Westphalen called the FBI on his own initiative immediately after the money was discovered. Under similar facts, the Sixth Circuit recently ruled that a warrant is not required before the police may seize the contraband. United States v. Winbush, 428 F.2d 357 (6th Cir. 1970). When the money was seized, it was in plain view of the Postal Inspectors who were lawfully on the premises of Alaska Airlines. Under these circumstances a warrantless seizure does not violate the Fourth Amendment. Coolidge v. New Hampshire, supra.

The judgment of conviction is affirmed.