Quinonez v. Does 1 through 5

Background

Plaintiffs René Quiñonez and Movement Ink LLC sued the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act. They alleged that United States Postal Inspection Service officers unlawfully seized, detained, and searched four packages containing masks screen-printed with political messages. After four amended complaints, two claims remained: Claim 1, trespass to chattels, and Claim 3, interference with prospective economic relations.

The fourth amended complaint added an alternative theory to Claim 1: that postal inspectors searched the packages by squeezing and sniffing them, in addition to allegedly opening them. For Claim 3, plaintiffs alleged that Postal Inspectors Mark Hodges and Aaron Doo later misrepresented why the packages had been detained, harming plaintiffs’ prospective business relationships. Plaintiffs alleged that Hodges and Doo knew about Movement Ink’s business and its relationships with Movement for Black Lives.

Claim 1: Trespass to Chattels

The court denied plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment because material facts were disputed about whether the packages were opened. Plaintiffs argued that government evidence should be disregarded and that agency records showed the packages had been opened. The court found that the evidence instead showed a dispute: records identified parcels that had been assessed and returned to the mail stream unopened, witnesses stated that the four packages were not opened, and the agency had no record that they were opened. Because a trial could be required to resolve that factual dispute, summary judgment was not appropriate.

The court separately rejected plaintiffs’ “squeeze and sniff” theory. It concluded that squeezing or sniffing packages voluntarily placed in the mail did not constitute a search under the Fourth Amendment. The court reasoned that people retain less of a property interest in an item entrusted to postal employees for delivery and that handling and smelling packages can serve legitimate mail-safety purposes. Because the theory could not support liability under the Federal Tort Claims Act, the court granted the government’s motion to dismiss that portion of Claim 1 without leave to amend. Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment was denied under both theories.

Claim 3: Interference with Prospective Economic Relations

The government sought dismissal of Claim 3 to the extent it applied to USPIS law-enforcement officers. It argued that plaintiffs had not plausibly alleged the officers knew about plaintiffs’ relevant business relationships and that the claim was barred by the Federal Tort Claims Act’s detention-of-goods exception.

The court denied dismissal. It held that the allegations, although sparse, plausibly showed that Hodges and Doo knew about plaintiffs’ business and relationships. The court noted that they might have obtained that information from sources other than the clerk who initially handled the packages, including national news coverage. Whether the inspectors actually had that knowledge and how they obtained it were questions for discovery.

The court also held that the detention-of-goods exception did not apply at this stage. The alleged misconduct involved a later investigative memorandum that supposedly misrepresented why the packages had been detained, after the packages had already been returned to the mail stream. The court treated that alleged conduct as independent of, and subsequent to, the detention itself rather than as conduct arising from the detention.

Disposition

The government’s motion to dismiss was granted in part and denied in part. The “squeeze and sniff” theory under Claim 1 was dismissed without leave to amend. Dismissal of Claim 3 was denied. Plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment was denied.