Login | April 20, 2024
Woman who had cocaine sent to her home loses appeal
ANNIE YAMSON
Special to the Legal News
Published: November 6, 2015
A panel of three judges in the 9th District Court of Appeals this week ruled that a Lorain woman did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy when it came to a package of cocaine delivered to her home.
In its affirmation of the judgment of the Lorain County Court of Common Pleas, the 9th District court held that Ketsy Padilla was not entitled to suppression of the evidence against her.
“The uncontested facts of this case are that, on April 17, 2012, a postal inspector identified a suspected drug parcel,” begins the summary of the case against Padilla.
The parcel was from Puerto Rico and addressed to Ariel Gonzalez at an address on E. 30th Street in Lorain.
A drug dog sniffed at the parcel and alerted so law enforcement obtained a warrant to open the package, which contained 10 ounces of cocaine.
Investigators subsequently repackaged the cocaine, fitted the parcel with an electronic transmitter that would alert when it was opened, and sent the drugs on their way in a controlled delivery.
The first attempted delivery failed because no one was at the residence.
On a second attempt, Padilla accepted the package and identified herself as Ariel Gonzalez.
Approximately two minutes later, the transmitter alerted and law enforcement entered the residence to execute a search warrant.
Court documents state that, inside the residence, officers found Padilla and Rafael Esquilin standing in the kitchen, next to the open package.
This time, Padilla correctly identified herself and stated that she lived at the residence with her grandmother and her boyfriend, Gonzalez, to whom the package was addressed.
Upon questioning, Padilla explained that Gonzalez informed her that a package would be coming for him and she admitted that she received delivery of it after identifying herself using her boyfriend’s name.
A grand jury indictment charged Padilla with trafficking in drugs, possession of drugs and use or possession of drug paraphernalia.
After her motion to suppress the evidence was denied, Padilla pleaded no contest and she was sentenced to 11 years in prison.
On appeal to the 9th District court, Padilla argued that the trial court should have suppressed the evidence because it incorrectly determined that she did not have a legitimate expectation of privacy in the parcel that she received at her home.
“Ms. Padilla argues that she had a legitimate expectation of privacy in the parcel that was sent to her home even though it was addressed to Mr. Gonzalez and she told officers that it was his cocaine,” Presiding Judge Jennifer Hensal wrote for the court of appeals.
Since Padilla denied any connection to the contents of the package, the reviewing court concluded that she did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy.
Still, Padilla proceeded to argue that since the package was in her home, law enforcement had no right to search it.
But Hensal noted that the question was not whether Padilla could expect privacy when it came to the items in her home, but whether she could expect privacy with regard to the contents of the package while it was in transit, that is, at the time of the drug dog sniff.
“Courts have recognized that the addressee of a letter or package has a reasonable expectation of privacy in those items before they have been delivered,” Hensal wrote.
However, she cited court precedent which does “not suggest that anyone who lives at the address where a parcel is delivered has a privacy interest in the parcel while it was in transit.”
“Ms. Padilla’s assignment of error is overruled,” Hensal concluded.
Judges Beth Whitmore and Carla Moore concurred.
The case is cited State v. Padilla, 2015-Ohio-4220.
Copyright © 2015 The Daily Reporter - All Rights Reserved