DOES A PERSON INVOLVED IN A DRUG CONSPIRACY HAVE A REASONABLE EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY IN A PACKAGE BEARING A FALSE NAME SENT TO SOMEONE ELSE’S ADDRESS?

On June 17, 2025, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals decided United States v. King[i], in which the court examined whether a person involved in a drug conspiracy possesses a reasonable expectation of privacy under the Fourth Amendment in a package sent to someone else’s residence under a false name.  The facts, taken directly from the case, are as follows:

On October 4, 2019, Pennsylvania State Police (“PSP”) were advised by a confidential informant that a UPS package containing one pound of methamphetamine would be delivered to Brown’s residence and that Brown and King would work together to retrieve the package. The informant also told PSP that the package label would list someone else’s name. In coordination with a UPS distribution center, law enforcement officers confirmed that there was a package due to arrive that day at Brown’s residence, verified that the named addressee had no affiliation with the delivery address (and, in fact, was likely not a real person), and arranged to meet the UPS driver who was transporting the package.

Two PSP troopers stopped the UPS truck to speak with the driver and investigate the suspected package. At the request of PSP, a Union County Sheriff’s Office deputy accompanied by a drug detection dog (hereinafter, “canine unit”) arrived at the truck shortly thereafter. Upon arrival, the deputy expressed concerns that, given the windy conditions in the now-opened truck trailer where the suspected package was located (alongside other, non-suspected packages), any odor was likely “destroyed” and the officers would not “get an indication” from the canine unit. Appendix (“App.”) 206. The officers proposed moving the package inside the truck, closing the trailer, and letting the package “sit [t]here for 40 minutes” to “build its odor back,” but this was not feasible given the UPS driver’s time constraints. App. 706. The officers opted to allow the canine unit to inspect the packages anyway, which yielded “no indication . . . on any of the packages.” App. 208.

With the consent of the UPS driver, who received approval from his supervisors, the officers transferred the UPS package to a nearby police barracks where the canine unit performed a second inspection. This time, the canine unit “indicated on it,” which suggested the presence of “illegal narcotic[s] in th[e] package.” App. 213. One of the PSP troopers promptly sought a warrant to search the package. The trooper submitted an affidavit in support of the warrant application, which detailed the tip from the confidential informant, PSP’s corroboration of the information provided by the informant, and the positive indication by the canine unit. The affidavit did not mention the initial canine unit deployment that did not result in a positive hit. A judge issued a search warrant later that day.

Pursuant to the search warrant, PSP searched the package, discovered the pound of methamphetamine therein, seized the methamphetamine, and arranged for a controlled delivery of a noncontrolled substance, which resulted in the arrest of both Brown and King.[ii]

King and Brown filed motions for a Franks hearing to determine the validity of the search warrant. [Note: A Franks hearing would be used to determine if the police misled a judge in order to obtain the search warrant.] The district court denied King’s motion and held that he did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the package because it was not sent to his address, and it did not bear his name.  The district court held that Brown did have an expectation of privacy in the package because the package was sent to his residence, although to a false name.  After a jury trial, King was convicted of conspiracy.  He subsequently appealed the denial of his motion to suppress.

On appeal, the Third Circuit set out to determine if the district court properly denied King’s motion for a Franks hearing to determine the validity of the search warrant.

At the outset, the court of appeals noted that King’s

 capacity to claim the protection of the Fourth Amendment depends . . . upon whether . . . [he] ha[d] a legitimate expectation of privacy in the invaded place.” Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U.S. 128, 143, 99 S. Ct. 421, 58 L. Ed. 2d 387 (1978).  King bears the burden of proving that he had an expectation of privacy and that his expectation was reasonable. United States v. Stearn, 597 F.3d 540, 551 (3d Cir. 2010).[iii]

Thus, the primary issue before the court was whether King had a reasonable expectation of privacy in a package that was not sent to his address and did not bear his name.

The court then discussed legal principles regarding reasonable expectation of privacy in packages sent by mail or private carriers.  The court stated

Senders enjoy a reasonable expectation of privacy in the content of their letters and packages. Walker v. Coffey, 905 F.3d 138, 146 (3d Cir. 2018). The same reasonable expectation of privacy is enjoyed by addressees of a package — fictitious or otherwise. See, e.g., United States v. Givens, 733 F.2d 339, 341-42 (4th Cir. 1984); United States v. Pierce, 959 F.2d 1297, 1303 (5th Cir. 1992). The same is not true for third parties like King, who “was neither the sender nor addressee of the package.” United States v. Koenig, 856 F.2d 843, 846 (7th Cir. 1988).[iv]

Based on the above principles, the court of appeals held that even though King may have been an intended recipient of the package, he cannot claim a reasonable expectation of privacy “in a package sent under a fake name to someone else’s address.”[v]

The court also noted that he cannot establish a reasonable expectation of privacy based on his participation in an illegal conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine.  The court stated

[A] defendant must possess independent, legitimate “[e]xpectations of privacy and property interests” in order to challenge a search or seizure under the Fourth Amendment. United States v. Padilla, 508 U.S. 77, 82, 113 S. Ct. 1936, 123 L. Ed. 2d 635 (1993). The existence of “the conspiracy itself neither adds to nor detracts from” this Court’s analysis of King’s Fourth Amendment standing.[vi]

Thus, the fact that he was involved in a drug conspiracy regarding the package did not provide King with a “legitimate expectation of privacy.”  To have a legitimate expectation of privacy in this case, the package must have been sent to King’s address or it must have borne King’s name.

Therefore, the court of appeals affirmed the decision of the district court that King lacked a reasonable expectation of privacy in the package and as such, was not entitled to a Franks hearing.

Note:  Court holdings can vary significantly between jurisdictions.  As such, it is advisable to seek the advice of a local prosecutor or legal adviser regarding questions on specific cases.  This article is not intended to constitute legal advice on a specific case.

___________________________________________________________

[i] No. 22-3290 (3rd Cir. June 17, 2025 Unpublished)

[ii] Id. at 2-4

[iii] Id. at 5 (emphasis added)

[iv] Id. at 5-6 (emphasis added)

[v] Id. at 6

[vi] Id. (emphasis added)