The Supreme Court held in United States v. Jacobsen, 466 U.S. 109, 104 S.Ct. 1652, 80 L.Ed.2d 85 (1984), that a Fourth Amendment “`seizure’ of property occurs when there is some meaningful interference with an individual’s possessory interests in that property.” Id. at 113, 104 S.Ct. 1652. In Va Lerie, this court, en banc, applied Jacobsen in the context presented by this case-property entrusted to a third-party common carrier. Va Lerie, 424 F.3d at 701-03, 708 n. 9. Va Lerie presents similar facts, and, thus, this case turns on whether Va Lerie, in which the en banc court concluded that a seizure did not occur, id. at 708-09, is distinguishable from this case.
In Va Lerie, the en banc court determined that law enforcement’s detention of property entrusted to a third-party common carrier constitutes a Fourth Amendment seizure only when the detention does any of the following: (1) “delay[s] a passenger’s travel or significantly impact[s] the passenger’s freedom of movement,” (2) “delay[s] [the checked luggage’s] timely delivery,” or (3) “deprive[s] the carrier of its custody of the checked luggage.” Id. at 707.
Full case here: U.S. v. Alvarez-Manzo, 570 F.3d 1070 (8th Cir. 2009), https://casetext.com/case/us-v-alvarez-manzo-3
Filed under: 4th Amendment & Searches · Federal Crimes
Related articles
- Can Cops Use a Thermal Camera on Your Home Without a Warrant? | Kyllo v. USJuly 22, 2026 · ▶ Video
- “He Put Stuff in My Room, Bro” — Kid Destroys 4th Amendment Defense (US v. Gatkuoth)June 10, 2026 · ▶ Video
- FBI Raids Home, Refuses to Show Warrant — State Can’t Just Take the Feds’ Word for It. 4th AmendmentJune 3, 2026 · ▶ Video
- San Diego Alien Smuggling AttorneyGuide

