Fifth Circuit Limits Fourth Amendment Actions Involving Federal Employees
This case law update was written by Michael J. Sgarlat, an attorney at the law firm of Shaw Bransford & Roth, where he has practiced federal personnel and employment law since 2015. Mr. Sgarlat works with federal employees to respond to proposed disciplinary and adverse actions, and has experience litigating cases before the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board.
In November 2017, U.S. Postal Service (USPS) letter carrier Jasia Girard was picking up a package at an address in Lafayette, Louisiana, when her thumb slipped through a hole. She felt a plastic bag containing what she thought to be marijuana. This worried her as children frequented the area. She looked through the hole and saw what appeared to be “aluminum pans with a little Ziploc bag.” She lifted the torn flap of the package to assess what was inside and observed hard white rocks. After a little research, she concluded these rocks were probably methamphetamine.
Girard did not deliver the package, or the two others at the address. She also did not inform her supervisor or the U.S. Postal Inspection Service (USPIS), USPS’s law enforcement branch, of the discovery. Instead, she brought the packages to the property manager of the address. She informed the property manager that she believed the packages contained drugs and that the property manager may want to call the police.
Lafayette police officer Brandon Lemelle responded to the property manager’s call. The property manager informed Lemelle about the suspected drugs. Likewise, Special Agent Douglas Herman of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) arrived minutes later and informed Lemelle that the address was suspected of being a methamphetamine stash house. A K-9 sniffed the package and confirmed drug presence. Girard later spoke to Herman about her discovery as well.
A search warrant was executed and uncovered eighteen pounds of methamphetamine. In an interview with officers, the owner of the residence stated that Alfonzo Johnlouis informed her the packages would arrive at her address.
Johnlouis was indicted for conspiracy to distribute and possess with an intent to distribute methamphetamine, and attempted possession of a controlled substance with intent to distribute. He moved to suppress, arguing that the narcotics evidence was seized in violation of the Fourth Amendment following an illegal search of a parcel by a USPS letter carrier. The district court denied the motion, determining Girard did not carry out law enforcement action within the Fourth Amendment. Johnlouis pled guilty to the conspiracy count and appeal the denial of the motion to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit described the case as one presenting “a novel question involving two provisions within the United States Constitution: the United States Postal Service and the Fourth Amendment.” The court’s prior decisions assessing the constitutionality of searches by USPS employees have involved the USPIS, not letter carriers. The Fifth Circuit had not considered whether a letter carrier is a government actor to whom the Fourth Amendment automatically applies.
That said, the court explained that the courts have never limited the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures to operations conducted by the police. To wit, the activities of building inspectors, firefighters, teachers, healthcare workers, and even USPS employees have been found to invoke the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition. “But the building inspectors, firefighters, teachers, healthcare workers, and USPS employees that courts have identified as government actors to whom the Fourth Amendment applies were all carrying out law enforcement functions.”
The court stated the same could not be said of Girard. The court explained that her thumb slipped through a hole and she inspected the package after feeling its contents. But, she did not do so to enforce law; she did so out of a concern for children in the area. The court concluded that even though Girard is a federal employee working for an agency that employs inspectors who undertake law enforcement activities, she is not one of them and the Fourth Amendment did not apply to Girard.
The Fifth Circuit held that there is no per se Fourth Amendment application to government actors, like Girard. The court further stated that it offers this “narrow holding tailored to the peculiar facts of this case and the particular activities of individual government actors.”
The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court.
Read the full case: United States v. Johnlouis.
For over thirty years, Shaw Bransford & Roth P.C. has provided superior representation on a wide range of federal employment law issues, from representing federal employees nationwide in administrative investigations, disciplinary and performance actions, and Bivens lawsuits, to handling security clearance adjudications and employment discrimination cases.