[sandworm101]

Customs /international shipments. There is a long history of seizing illegal or suspect material at boarder crossings where the actual owner/importer is unknown or not available. A funny-named lawsuit against a box is significantly better than the alternative: zero legal process and no case recorded anywhere.

[arcticbull]

Agreed, it makes sense in some contexts. The issue with asset forfeiture is that the state pretends not to know who the owner is so they can move forward in rem.

[edit] Well, two problems: frequently the entity seizing the property gets to keep it and add it to their budget - or split the proceeds. This creates an incentive for them to move forward this way.

[R0b0t1]

It'd be better to do a John Doe case, because an item can't represent itself. A hyptothetical defndant can.

There's also the problem of you have no rights at the border anyway, even though you should.

[jazzyjackson]

> lawsuit against a box

I just can't make sense of the "vs" in the case titles, in what way is the object fighting back? Why is there a case at all and not "here is a list of contraband seized at the border" ?

[Goronmon]

Why is there a case at all and not "here is a list of contraband seized at the border" ?

I would assume the legal procedure is what determines what actually happens to the object. Just like the police arrest people but don't sentence them or put them in prison directly.

[sandworm101]

Legal Research and Writing day one: it is never written as "vs", always "v." It is Roe v. Wade, not Roe vs. Wade.

[dimal]

That makes sense in that case, but if that’s the reason, how can that apply to situations where the ownership of the property is well understood?