legal wrongdoing,” United States v. Arvizu, 534 U.S. 266, 273, 122 S.Ct. 744, 151 L.Ed.2d 740 (2002) (internal quotation marks omitted), as “understood by those versed in the field of law enforcement,” United States v. Cortez, 449 U.S. 411, 418, 101 S.Ct. 690, 66 L.Ed.2d 621 (1981). Here, Inspector Kaminski had reasonable suspicion. The postmaster warned Kaminski that Lozano was behaving suspiciously, specifically asking whether mail could be searched for drugs. See United States v. Aldaz, 921 F.2d 227, 229 (9th Cir.1990). In addition, the package listed a fictitious sender and addressee and an incomplete return address, was shipped with delivery confirmation. service, had a handwritten label, had been mailed from California, and was heavily taped. See Hernandez, 313 F.3d at 1211 (<HOLDING>). Therefore, we are satisfied that Kaminski had
holding package was not seized when it was detained since it could have been delivered in timely fashion if cocaine had not been discovered inside holding that there was probable cause for arrest where officers knew defendants had recently been with suspected drug dealer officers saw defendants car being maneuvered so as to indicate that surveillance had been detected and when officers approached car defendant attempted to place package under car and then pulled the package back inside the car and closed and locked the car door holding that where a witness had been convicted seventeen years earlier but had been given probation and had not been confined the date of the conviction controlled holding inspector had reasonable suspicion when the return sender was fictitious the package was shipped special delivery the label was handwritten the package had been mailed from california and the package had been taped up at all the seams holding the doctrine of forfeiture by wrongdoing inapplicable when a witness had been deported during the period of time the defendant had been a fugitive