RICHARDS v. U.S

Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Docket Number

No. 85-5091.

Attorney(S)

Theodore J. Sakowitz, Federal Public Defender, David Lee Brannon, Asst. Federal Public Defender, Miami, Fla., for petitioner-appellant. Leon B. Kellner, U.S. Atty., Robert Bondi, Nancy Worthington, David O. Leiwant, Linda Collins Hertz, Asst. U.S. Attys., Miami, Fla., for respondent-appellee.

Judges

Paul Hitch Roney
Phyllis A. Kravitch
Albert John Henderson

Acts

Food And Drugs — Drug Abuse Prevention And Control — Control And Enforcement — Offenses And Penalties — Prohibited Acts A
Judiciary And Judicial Procedure — Habeas Corpus — Particular Proceedings — Federal Custody; Remedies On Motion Attacking Sentence
Customs Duties — Customs Administration — The Tariff And Related Provisions — Enforcement Provisions — Search Of Vehicles And Persons

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

Raymond Richards was convicted of possession of heroin with intent to distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). His conviction was affirmed on direct appeal. Richards subsequently filed a motion for collateral relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, arguing that the heroin was seized by Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) agents from a sealed mailed package without legal authority. The district court denied this motion, and Richards appealed that denial.

On March 2, 1978, a sealed parcel addressed to a Miami Springs, Florida post office box was intercepted by Customs officers at the Foreign Mail Center in New York City. The parcel was opened and heroin was discovered inside cigarette packages. The parcel was then resealed and sent for controlled delivery to the Miami Springs post office box. DEA agents waited for the parcel to be claimed, and Richards was arrested upon accepting delivery. After his arrest, DEA agents opened the sealed parcel without a warrant outside Richards' presence, confirming the presence of 27.4 grams of heroin hydrochloride.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether Richards can challenge the statutory authority of DEA agents to conduct a warrantless search of a sealed mailed package under 28 U.S.C. § 2255.
Whether the warrantless opening of the parcel by DEA agents in Miami Springs violated the Fourth Amendment’s protections against unlawful searches and seizures.

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioner-Appellant's Arguments

Richards contended that DEA agents lacked statutory authority to conduct a warrantless "border search" of the parcel in Miami Springs.
He conceded that Customs officers have authority to make warrantless searches of incoming international mail but argued no statute or regulation grants DEA agents similar power.

Respondent-Appellee's Arguments

This information was not available in the provided opinion.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
United States v. Richards, 638 F.2d 765 (5th Cir.) (cert. denied 454 U.S. 1097)	Affirmed Richards' conviction and upheld the legality of the "extended border search" of the parcel under the Fourth Amendment.	The court relied on this precedent to reject Richards' constitutional challenge to the warrantless search in Miami Springs.
Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206 (11th Cir. 1981)	Adoption of former Fifth Circuit decisions as binding precedent in the Eleventh Circuit.	Supported using the Fifth Circuit’s prior rulings, including United States v. Richards, as controlling authority.
United States v. Ramsey, 431 U.S. 606 (1977)	Established that Customs officers have authority to conduct warrantless searches of incoming international mail.	Confirmed the accepted authority of Customs officers, distinguishing DEA agents’ authority.
United States v. Capua, 656 F.2d 1033 (5th Cir. 1981)	Clarified the limited scope of relief available under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, reserving it for constitutional violations or other serious miscarriages of justice.	Used to reject Richards’ statutory argument as not fitting § 2255’s narrow scope.
Illinois v. Andreas, 463 U.S. 765 (1983)	Held that reopening a sealed package after a lawful warrantless border search and controlled delivery is not a Fourth Amendment search.	Supported the conclusion that the DEA agents’ warrantless opening of the parcel did not violate the Fourth Amendment.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court first addressed Richards' statutory argument that DEA agents lacked authority to conduct the warrantless search of the parcel. It held that this argument could have been raised on direct appeal but was not, and thus is barred from consideration in a § 2255 motion because such motions are reserved primarily for constitutional claims or other serious errors that could not have been raised earlier.

Next, the court considered whether the warrantless search violated the Fourth Amendment. It relied on the prior panel decision affirming Richards' conviction under the "extended border search" doctrine, which permits certain warrantless searches at the border or its functional equivalent. The court further cited Illinois v. Andreas, where the Supreme Court ruled that reopening a sealed package after a lawful border search and controlled delivery does not constitute a new Fourth Amendment search. The court reasoned that because Customs officers lawfully searched the parcel in New York, the DEA agents’ subsequent opening of the parcel in Miami was constitutionally permissible. Additionally, there was no significant likelihood that the contents were altered during the surveillance gap.

Holding and Implications

The district court's denial of Richards' motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 is AFFIRMED.

This decision directly upholds the conviction and denies collateral relief to Richards. It confirms that statutory challenges to DEA authority not raised on direct appeal are generally barred in § 2255 proceedings, and it reinforces the constitutionality of warrantless searches of mailed packages under the extended border search doctrine as clarified by Supreme Court precedent. No new legal precedent was established by this ruling.

Show full summary ...

RAYMOND RICHARDS, PETITIONER-APPELLANT, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, RESPONDENT-APPELLEE.

PER CURIAM:

Raymond Richards was convicted of possession of heroin with intent to distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). His conviction was affirmed on appeal. United States v. Richards, 638 F.2d 765 (5th Cir.) cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1097, 102 S.Ct. 669, 70 L.Ed.2d 638 (1981). Richards then filed a motion for collateral relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 on the ground that the heroin was seized by agents of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) from a sealed mailed package without legal authority. The district court denied relief. We affirm.

The Eleventh Circuit, in the in banc decision Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 (11th Cir. 1981), adopted as precedent decisions of the former Fifth Circuit rendered prior to October 1, 1981.

On March 2, 1978, a sealed parcel addressed to Mehling Arts Crafts at a Miami Springs, Florida post office box arrived at the Foreign Mail Center in New York City. Suspicious Customs officers opened the parcel and discovered cigarette packages. Tests revealed the presence of heroin inside the packages. The Customs officers reassembled and resealed the parcel for controlled delivery to the Miami Springs post office box. The Miami Springs post office put a notice of arrival in the box, and DEA agents waited for someone to request the parcel. Eventually Richards claimed the parcel and was arrested after accepting delivery. While Richards was being booked at a police station, the DEA agents opened the sealed parcel without a warrant outside Richards' presence. Chemical analysis disclosed the presence of 27.4 grams of 93% heroin hydrochloride, or enough for 12,000 street level doses.

Richards has never challenged the legality of the search of the parcel in New York. Rather, he argues that DEA had no authority to make a warrantless "border search" of the package in Miami Springs. Conceding that Customs officers have authority to make warrantless searches of incoming international mail, see United States v. Ramsey, 431 U.S. 606, 611-16, 97 S.Ct. 1972, 1976-78, 52 L.Ed.2d 617 (1977); 19 U.S.C. § 482; 19 C.F.R. § 145.2 (1987), Richards contends that no statute gives DEA agents such power.

We conclude that Richards may not make this statutory argument in his § 2255 motion. Although Richards could have made this argument on direct appeal from his conviction, failure to raise a nonconstitutional ground on direct appeal generally precludes consideration of that argument in a § 2255 motion. Relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 "is reserved for transgressions of constitutional rights and for that narrow compass of other injury that could not have been raised on direct appeal and would, if condoned, result in a complete miscarriage of justice." United States v. Capua, 656 F.2d 1033, 1037 (5th Cir. Unit A Sept. 1981). Richards' argument that DEA agents have no authority under statute or regulation to conduct warrantless border searches does not fit this description.

Moreover, to the extent that Richards' claim is a constitutional one, it has no merit. The panel that affirmed Richards' conviction concluded that the opening of Richards' parcel in Miami comported with the fourth amendment under an "extended border search" theory. See United States v. Richards, 638 F.2d at 770-73. More recent case law has further demonstrated the soundness of Judge Gee's concurring opinion, id. at 774, that the legal warrantless border search of the parcel by Customs Agents in New York City obviated the need for a search warrant after the controlled delivery to Miami. In Illinois v. Andreas, 463 U.S. 765, 103 S.Ct. 3319, 77 L.Ed.2d 1003 (1983), the Supreme Court held that the warrantless reopening of a sealed package after a legal warrantless border search followed by a controlled delivery was not a "search" at all within the meaning of the fourth amendment. Id. at 772. The Andreas Court explained that the recipient's expectation of privacy in the contents of a container diminishes once law enforcement authorities lawfully open the container and discover illicit drugs therein. Id. at 771. Moreover, "[r]esealing the container to enable the police to make a controlled delivery does not operate to revive or restore the lawfully invaded privacy right." Id. Finally, as in Andreas, in this case there was no "significant likelihood" that the contents of the container were changed during any gap in surveillance. Id. at 773.

Accordingly, the order of the district court denying Richards' motion for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 is

AFFIRMED.