Inspired by this video, demonstrating the ease with which airline workers can get into most locked suitcases. The video warns against the possibility of theft, but I’m somewhat more weirded out by the idea of being an unwitting drug mule (airline employee at my departure point places drugs in my luggage, another airline employee at my destination point retrieves the drugs). If my luggage is searched by the authorities and found to contain contraband, is there reasonable doubt as to my guilt, given that my luggage has been out of my sight for several hours and could easily have been tampered with?
What are the legal precedents that cover this situation?
You could try to argue the case but without corroborating evidence you’d probably be out of luck. I don’t know any cases where the argument has been made. However i do know of a case a few years ago when a foreign woman had a stash of maryjane put in her suitcase by airport baggage staff (for the purposes of training their sniffer dogs). However, the stupid staff forgot to take the stash out of the suitcase. So when she opened the suitcase she was quite surprised. She contacted the airport and they realized their mistake. No charges were filed.
Other than the baggage ticket affixed to my suitcase (showing that my suitcase was indeed submitted as checked baggage on my flight), would I need additional corroborating evidence to create reasonable doubt? Wouldn’t it be enough to explain in court the workings of the baggage-handling system, showing that X number of people had access to my luggage during my trip?
In theoretical law-school world it would be utterly impossible to convict someone of possession based on the contents of a bag that was in someone else’s custody. You have neither actual nor constructive possession, which are generally required elements. You don’t even exercise dominion over the bag, since AIUI the TSA can open any bag it likes.
I ain’t no lawyer—but as soon as you pick up your bag off the conveyor belt, don’t you have possession?
How is this scenerio different than when the customs police catch 10 million dollars of heroin hidden in a heavy commercial freight shipment, and arrest the person who picks up the shipment at the dock? When the ship sailed from Columbia or wherever, it was in the custody of someone else.
It seems to me that the problem would be proving in court that the drugs were placed in your suitcase by a stranger at the airport, and not by you yourself before you went to the airport.
And that sounds like scary grounds for a defence at trial, if there’s no other evidence.
In the OP’s scenario, the drugs are already gone by the time you pick up your bag, because some other baggage handler has removed them at the destination airport. So the bag would have to be searched before you retrieved it.
In the OP’s scenario the drugs would have to be recovered before the innocent passenger retrieves the bags. What’s the point of having an elaborate airport-to-airport scheme if you let the mule walk away with the drugs?
It seems to me that the prosecution would have to know that a valid defense would be that it was in possession of numerous other airline employees that had access to the baggage. Presumption of innocence. Prosecution has to do the proving.
well, the point would seem to be to prove that sometimes a Doper doesn’t think before he types his post. :smack:
(ironically–my post is sandwiched between two others by really not all that bright—but I think his username would be more appropriate for me today. Sorry
That’s not a bar to prosecution, though; if you take your car to AAMCO and they find a bag of heroin tucked under the spare wheel, you are probably not going to get off based solely on the fact that you did not have dominion and control of the vehicle while it was in the shop.
That is not to say that the burden does not rest on the prosecution, just that juries are entitled to define reasonable doubt for themselves. You’d better have a pretty good story about why the mechanic is trying to frame you.
-the smugglers accidentally let a shipment slip through, and you end up picking up a suitcase with drugs in it.
-a TSA/DEA ass-sniffing dog in the baggage-handling area triggers on your bag, so agents watch the bag go through the system (and airline workers keep their distance). You end up picking up a suitcase with drugs in it.
So have juries accepted this argument in the past? Have travelers caught with drugs in their suitcases been found not guilty?
(I would guess one piece of evidence in a travelers’ favor would be the absence of his fingerprints on any drug package in his suitcase…)
Years ago I read Snowblind: A brief career in the cocaine trade by Robert Sabbag. It was the story of Zachary Swan who was smuggling cocaine to the US from Colombia before organized crime took it over. He set up various ways of getting stuff in that left his mules safe from prosecution.
Two that I recall:
One: He set up a fake prize holiday to Colombia by placing a note in a resealed coffee jar that he planted in a supermarket. When the unsuspecting “winners” went on their trip to Colombia they received lots of gifts full of hidden cocaine. When he knew the coast was clear Swan stole them and replaced them with cocaine free copies. The “winners” were provided with plenty of proof that they had been set up.
Two: Two people would catch the same flight with identical distinctive bags. One would be the bag of the mule, the other would be the bag full of cocaine. The bag full of cocaine would contain clothing for someone of the opposite gender to the mule. The mule would pick up the bag full of drugs and head to customs. The other guy would wait. If the mule wasn’t checked and went through customs the associate would grab the identical back and leave. If the mule was stopped for a customs check the associate would leave the innocent bag on the carousel and go. the mule could then say, “That’s not my bag, it’s all women’s clothing,” knowing that their bag was on the carousel.
I have represented a lot of people charged with drug crimes. Drugs in their shoes, drugs in their bodies, drugs in their pockets, drugs in their cars. I never saw a case with drugs in the suitcase (at airport–I have seen suitcases and similar bags used to carry drugs in cars, etc).
I think the case would be defensible, given what has already been said. Absence of fingerprints on drug package is certainly something you would raise, as well as the bag being out of your control. Unfortunately, whether you get charged or not (and convicted or not) probably has a lot more to do with whether you fit a certain profile than the actual evidence. If you’re an average person, with a real job, normal family, taking a “normal” trip, and no unusual financial habits, the “Do I look like a drug dealer?” defense might help. On the other hand, if you are a college student, or someone who likes to deal in cash, or took a trip to Mexico but only stayed 24 hours, you might be screwed.
In practice, this kind of scheme would probably work something like this:
Baggage Handler “A” picks out a visually distinctive suitcase that’s going to the appropriate destination. He hides the drugs, then he calls/text messages his accomplice at the destination airport, saying “Flight 2304 from Mexico City. Look for the ugly purple suitcase.” Baggage Handler “B” then finds the appropriate suitcase and retrieves the drugs.
Of course, there are several ways this could go wrong. Perhaps there were really 2 ugly purple suitcases, or perhaps Baggage Handler “B” gets assigned to a different flight at the last moment, or perhaps the DEA agents are hanging around and B doesn’t have a chance to retrieve the goods. In any of these events, you’d wind up picking up a suitcase with drugs in it.
Getting drugs in or out of an airport as an employee is no easy task either. In my limited experience, an airside worker has a harder time getting into work than a passenger does getting into the terminal. Every worker is drug and explosive particle checked when crossing over. At least, this was my experience several times at Heathrow.
Case one was recently caught in Australia. The couple were not prosecuted as they were ELDERLY… If they were more suspicious, they may have been prosecuted on the basis they accepted a free or cheap holiday, and accepted the new luggage too.
Case two… well the security people will be on alert since there is a drug bust . Then they may put out an alert to check all Flight XY123 passengers thoroughly.
Ok so now they have two people and two suitcases. Who owns what ? One says its the others. The same suitcase brand… perhaps it can be shown they are the same batch, or even bought as a pair. perhaps the DNA testing can show a match… must be in conspiracy… any lie may do them in … they lied about “I never met that person before” ??? So why did they meet ? why did they put their DNA on both bags ?
The book this scenario comes from was written in 1976, and the dual-bag technique may have been feasable then.
But today, we have computers. There’s a bar code on all luggage, and a bar code on your eticket. I assume that they match up, and you can’t just deny that it’s your bag.
Yes I found the Corby case while I was researching just today but couldn’t post from work because of the virus threat thing.
But there was no credible evidence in the Corby case that the baggage handlers/customs workers were complicit in any way, and in addition her defense counsel admitted that he just made that defense up (he actually got disbarred for that and several other more serious reasons). So, at least in some jurisdictions the mere fact that your baggage was out of your hands/sight/control for a certain amount of time is not a very strong defense at all. There are many parallels to this in US law too. Suspicion is 9/10ths of the law.
There is no presumption of innocence anymore, if there ever was (ohh, I’m going to get attacked for that, but bring it on). For example, if in the USA you are caught out and about with a large stack of cash by a law enforcement officer then it can be confiscated as suspected drug money, and you can only get it back if you challenge the confiscation in court. Nice.
On the other hand, back to the OP,if you can show evidence that the baggage handlers had in fact been putting drugs into luggage of innocent people, the you might have a good defense. You’d need to introduce reasonable doubt, that’s all, but a fanciful supposition is not generally reasonable doubt.
