[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".

[big-green-man]

A search warrant has to specify exactly what is expected to be found and exactly where. If the police get a warrant to search your place because they believe you're manufacturing LSD and they find a dead body, that body cannot be used as evidence in prosecution.

So a drug sniffing dog alert being justification for a search, presumably they'd expect to find drugs upon opening the package. I think the same thing would apply here, they thought they found drugs, they didn't find drugs, so they can't do anything, let alone seize the property.