[CMYKninja]

It is against FedEx policy to send cash. It is a violation of the shipping agreement. the declared value coverage does not cover cash or cash equivalents. If you have more questions regarding acceptance standards it is recommended that you visit a FedEx Express Ship Station ( where your local packages are sorted) and ask to speak to a “Senior Customer Service Associate” this person is a senior FedEx agent and can walk you through the finer points of more difficult to understand shipping scenarios.

[Danjoe4]

Then FedEx is more than welcome to refuse shipping those packages, blacklist the sender, or sue them. On what grounds exactly does LE get involved.

[rtpg]

I do not believe the civil forfeiture flow as is, is correct. And beyond that, having LE even know about the money... I don't know how that works.

Having said all that, sending cash through the mail just feels like a really obvious money laundering vector. You might claim that there's no distinction between that and, say, handing over a bunch of cash directly to a person, but in the world of money laundering each extra layer makes the operation safer!

I don't think that from this it follows that we should be opening envelopes all over, but there's a universe where the seller of jewelry is very aware that they are taken illicit cash, and in a a more just universe there's some sort of warrant.

I do not know how to square the privacy question with this, but I do like the idea of money laundering not being trivially doable.

[komali2]

> Having said all that, sending cash through the mail just feels like a really obvious money laundering vector.

This is a classic America debate - just because criminals do it doesn't mean the State should punish everyone else that does it. America is full of weirdos that want to do weird things and be left alone to do it without State interference. Since 2001 I feel like the "if you have nothing to hide..." argument has been given WAY too much credence. Feels like the American zeitgeist is turning against characters like Hunter S. or George Carlin and I feel like we used to celebrate this sort of gonzo, leave-me-the-fuck-alone ideology instead.

[rtpg]

Flattening what I said to "if you have nothing to hide" is really dismissive.

I believe you have the right to privacy! I believe that searches should have warrants associated to them! The fact that a "drug sniffing dog" was how this package was opened feels like enough to just throw this out!

I do think there is a universe where this happened through a warrant, and that the warrant wasn't given out glibly, and where the seizure probably makes a hell of a lot of sense.

Context-free discussions on this are annoying because at one point the _extremely crucial distinction_ of judicial oversight through a warrant just gets completely lost despite it being _the load-bearing component_ to "not without a warrant"!

[komali2]

Right but we're having discourse right now and discourse contributes to the zeitgeist. Whether intentional or otherwise I interpret your comment on the side of blaming the victim - "well... it WAS suspicious what they were doing."

That language is being used to justify all sorts of unethical behavior by the police, often flagrantly unconstitutional, usually at minimum illegal, and almost always the times it's not obviously illegal, it should be (the laws should be changed).

I don't know if it's from lack of regular interaction from the police but I find a lot of people online are under the mistaken impression that the constitution or law is guarding the rights of people in the USA. Cops get away with violating the constitution and breaking the law multiple times every day - sometimes in ways the supreme court has allowed, such as by lying to you, or tricking you into thinking you have to voluntarily give up your rights. Combine that with a completely overwhelmed court system that leads to something like 90% of people taking plea deals, and the absurd concept of "mandated minimums" and sentencing requirements that judges blindly follow, and you've got a legal system that's nothing like what people represent online.

So I feel "well it's suspicious but of course they should get a warrant" is pro-surveillance state, not anti.

[whartung]

I had a family member in a truly messed up financial condition that resulted in me sending them $1000 in prepaid Visa cards.

Those were sent USPS priority, and I can surely tell you there was mild panic when they didn’t show up on time. I was concerned someone saw the contents on X-ray and decided they had nothing to lose by letting that envelope, um, slip through the cracks.

They eventually arrived, but it was a worrisome couple days.

[big-green-man]

I know how to square the privacy question with this, and you do too.

Money laundering is trivial regardless.

[rtpg]

To be clear, what I meant by "this" here was something like... imagine that law enforcement has pretty good "proof" that there are these transactions going on for money laundering purposes. What universe of facts gives law enforcement the right to seize a package en route? Is every package in FedEx equivalent to a diplomatic pouch? Can LE do it if they have testimony to the effect of "money is in this box"? Do they require more proof? Do they need to just grab people when it gets picked up by the guy?

This cash thing is messy enough, but the drug sniffing dogs at the FedEx distribution center is obviously _something_. Even if the dog was consistently finding drugs in packages (and not being an excuse to open a package), is that OK? Is that not? What if LE is X-Ray'ing packages for "safety" reasons, do they get carte blanche to search the package there?

You might be surprised how I'd land on most of these, I think privacy is pretty important and blanket searches are pretty BS! I kinda think drug sniffing dogs are bad!

Just holistically speaking, you'd probably find that "drug sniffing dogs should not be allowed at airports and FedEx shipping centers" would be extremely unpopular and also not an easy point to argue as a consequence of some fundamental constitutional rights. And then the dogs are there, so now the cops have a skeleton key.

Context matters I guess.

[big-green-man]

So, at least in the US, the 4th amendment says that we are protected from search and seizure unless there is reasonable suspicion by way of probable cause that we have committed a crime, and then, the things to be searched and seized must be clearly identified beforehand. That sounds like a pretty reasonable standard to me.

That would mean, essentially, that they could not do anything at all with your packages unless they already have a reason to suspect you of a crime, and that even then, they have to have a reason to believe that a particular package is involved in said crime and even say beforehand what they expect to find in it.

Now, on to the specific scenario at hand. You might argue that that is too stringent, that no crime can ever be proven under that framework, and you may say it shouldn't preclude x rays and drug dogs and what not, I might even agree with you. But that as well as any other reasonable concept of justly handling suspicion precludes randomly opening peoples packages and keeping money by construing the simple presence of money as evidence that a crime maybe was committed and they get to keep it whether there was or wasn't a crime there. Even by the most lax framework of how to handle suspicion and searching property that is outrageous.

[rtpg]

In this specific case, a drug sniffing dog was used to open the box. This isn't abstract, but a concrete thing that has happened, going down one of your hypotheticals.

To be clear, I'm against what has happened in this case! But I think you'll find plenty of judges who will sign off on the idea that sending $43k through FedEx in cash to buy jewelry is plenty suspicious. Way more than a broken tail light.

You might say "how did they know it was for a jewelry purchase", but now you're arguing that looking at the destination of the package is a search. Given how courts have treated probably cause in general, you're looking at an uphill argument.

The nefarious thing here of course is that its seized so now the sender theoretically needs to come forward and prove the contrary, somehow. So much for presumption of innocence!

There is an abstract argument to be made based on what the constitution says, but if everyone in power agrees that something means what it means (despite that not agreeing with... well, the actual meaning of the words), you kind of have to argue in that framework. And while civil forefeiture as a whole feels like a pretty big and juicy target for some argument, this very focused case doesn't fall apart that easily IMO.

If you are buying into reasonable suspicion as a means for law enforcement to do things, and you have the dogs, I don't know how you avoid that leading to "the money in the envelope here is seizable". This case is way less sympathetic than the usual "someone gets pulled over with cash in their car and it gets seized".

[frustacean]

At what point did sending cash become criminal such that the police felt justified to seize it? Are we just fully ignoring the Constitution now or?

[tbrownaw]

> Are we just fully ignoring the Constitution now

The feds do quite a lot these days that isn't actually part of their enumerated powers.

[JumpCrisscross]

> The feds

The plaintiff "is pursuing a class action lawsuit against the state of Indiana." No evidence of any Feds being involved.

[DannyBee]

The feds were not part of this - it was state proceedings.

[DannyBee]

Lawyer here (but FWIW, i donate to IJ so, uh, not exactly on the government's side here):

Take what i'm about to say as a description of the process rather than any support for it :)

So, it's not quite that. Here, they are claiming it because a dog "alerted" on the package, so they then claim it's related to criminal activity. regardless of whether they find actual drugs in it.

This part: "Even though Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department dogs alerted handlers to the smell of drugs in the box, no contraband could be found once it was opened."

The first part is why they were involved and allowed to seize it.

The second is mostly irrelevant, legally (whether it should be or not). You don't have to prove it contained drugs to prove it was proceeds of a crime or otherwise part of criminal activity. This part is actually right, whether it gets used in an insane fashion or not. This is civil and not criminal, so the standard is not "proof beyond a reasonable doubt".

They file a suit against the money itself. It ends up with a funny case title like "United States v. An Article Consisting of 50,000 Cardboard Boxes More or Less, Each Containing One Pair of Clacker Balls," or "United States v. Approximately 64,695 Pounds of Shark Fins"

(both real, but federal seizures. If a state seizes it, it's like State of Indiana v., and often less funny)

Even if the person is not charged with a crime, if they successfully argue the money itself is criminal proceeds or was involved in criminal activity, they can confiscate it.

So, it's not sending cash that enables them to seize it. It's whether the money is used in criminal activity. The thing that enables them to be involved is that the dog alerted to it.

Now, for as much bullshit as exists in dog alerts, in this case, fedex often goes through about 100k packages an hour in this site, and they have seized 100 of them in the past year.

That's a really really small percent of the packages.

[dotancohen]

Here's one of those cases:

  United States v. an Art. Consisting of Boxes of Clacker Balls, 413 F. Supp. 1281 (E.D. Wis. 1976)

https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/4...

[mh-]

> Now, for as much bullshit as exists in dog alerts, in this case, fedex often goes through about 100k packages an hour in this site, and they have seized 100 of them in the past year.

Such a vanishingly small percentage that it suggests some sort of parallel construction. Surely the dog (and handler) aren't just standing there all year waiting to hit on a package..

[DannyBee]

Doubtful - for the simple reason that fedex has cameras everywhere, and unlike the police and bodycam footage, they have no dog in this fight, so they aren't going to mysteriously lose the footage.

So my guess - they set aside the very small percent of very funny smelling or leaking or ... packages (since lots of packages never see human hands, it would be a very small percent anyway) and then the police dogs sniff them.

If i remember, i'll see if i can find some earlier docketed cases and see if they describe whether they have police there all the time or not. I honestly would not be shocked.

I live near a mcmaster carr warehouse that is about a million square feet (one of their larger ones), and they have local k-9 police out front 24/7 just sitting in their car near the entrance to the facility (AFAICT - they have been there every time i have ever done will-call, and when i asked the guy, he said they were there 24/7)

It would not surprise me that fedex's indy hub (which is 2.4 million square feet, and more important than this mcmaster carr warehouse) had local police k-9 units around 24/7.

Last but definitely not least, the indy hub is, IIRC, at the indianapolis airport. In that case, there would definitely be k-9 units and local police just hanging around.

[internet101010]

Not to be that guy but all packages are touched by human hands. Probably 3-4 people on average at each stop on a tracking status page, and that's assuming small items like flat envelopes and small boxes are grouped together into giant bags throughout the process.

[DannyBee]

Fair enough. I can’t edit it to remove that part, which is mostly orthogonal to the point.

[AngryData]

Its been like that since the drug war. Any large amount of cash is seized whenever it is found and considered the procedes of criminal activities unless you can definitively prove that that exact pile of cash had zero involvement in any past crime or future crime.

[JumpCrisscross]

> Are we just fully ignoring the Constitution now or?

The law, not the Constitution. Nothing in the Constitution would prevent the Congress from banning mailing cash.

[vlovich123]

It’s not quite so clear cut. From Wikipedia:

> These attempts at limiting the content of the mail were upheld by the Supreme Court, but in the 20th century, the Court took a more assertive approach in striking down postal laws which limited free expression, particularly as it related to political materials.[7][8] The First Amendment thus provided a check on the Postal Power.

And SCOTUS these days also tends to equate cash as a form of political speech. Of course mailing cash is a bit different than mailing political materials but you could make the case that it’s part of a political organizing campaign or payment for political materials. And mailing cash itself through the USPS is actually perfectly legal as long as it’s for a legal purpose.

[JumpCrisscross]

> SCOTUS these days also tends to equate cash as a form of political speech

No, it does not.

[vlovich123]

What an eloquent rebuttal. I’m convinced. But for someone more skeptical, maybe elaborate how that wasn’t in effect the ruling in citizens united?

[JumpCrisscross]

> how that wasn’t in effect the ruling in citizens united?

Donating to a candidate or sponsoring an ad that says things about a candidate are protected political speech, requiring a strict standard for the Congress to regulate. Citizens reasoned that if that’s true individually it should be true for a group, on the basis—in part—of freedom of assembly, whether that be an advocacy group or corporation.

Money = speech is a colloquial but wrong summary. Money donated to a candidate or used to buy speech is protected, whether done individually or as a group. The simplest resolution is to read the opinion.

(Logically speaking, it makes sense. It’s just absurd to construct the freedom of assembly as automatically making all rights natural persons enjoy commutative.)

[vlovich123]

Not sure why you’re being downvoted. It’s one thing for it to be against policy and FedEx to be seizing it (which itself would unlikely to be a legal action vs returning it and fining the recipient), a totally different matter for the police to be doing it.

[unethical_ban]

They're not being downvoted.

Someone (I'm assuming it's only one person) must have gotten a downvote and now has spun up a bunch of new accounts to complain about bot armies and astroturfing.

Moreover, they're complaining that the tone here is too pro-police, despite what I see is a majority of comments being critical of asset forfeiture.

[bogantech]

Does that give the police free reign to steal it?

[keeptryinglol]

I mean, I, for one, sleep a lot better knowing that money isn't just flying around in trucks.

[lannisterstark]

Do you? Because money IS flying around in trucks. How do you think stores and banks get the money for their safes? Magic?

[timnetworks]

There's a usmc veteran that got pulled over with his life savings and ended up in a world of legal procedure over it. The people putting wads of cash into boxes and sending them by post are not those people. (He got it back, I hope they won't.)

[MattGaiser]

This seems like a separate issue. FedEx rejecting it could be explained by this. FedEx reporting it to police could be explained by this. The police keeping it indefinitely is not explained by this.

[Shadowmist]

That policy can be negotiated if you are shipping enough, but nobody tells those associates because they don’t want them stealing the cash.

[NotACop182]

Sounds like something FedEx would say