From our private database of 37,200+ case briefs...
United States v. Jacobsen
United States Supreme Court
466 U.S. 109 (1984)
Facts
A package belonging to the Jacobsens (defendants) was damaged by a forklift at a Federal Express warehouse. Federal Express employees, in compliance with a corporate policy concerning insurance claims, opened the package to inspect its contents. On discovering that the package contained a white, powdery substance wrapped in several layers of plastic bags, the Federal Express employees repackaged the substance and called the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA). DEA agents removed the powder from the box and conducted a field test that identified the powder as cocaine. Based on the result of the field test, agents obtained a warrant to search the address on the package and arrested the Jacobsens for possession of an illegal substance with intent to distribute. The Jacobsens filed a motion to suppress, arguing that the warrant had been obtained pursuant to an illegal search and seizure. The trial court denied the motion, and the Jacobsens were convicted. The court of appeals reversed the conviction, holding that the warrantless test of the white powder had been a significant expansion of the Federal Express employees’ private search of the package and thus had violated the Jacobsens’ Fourth Amendment rights.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Stevens, J.)
Concurrence (White, J.)
Dissent (Brennan, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 630,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 37,200 briefs, keyed to 984 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.