31 ms·
Indiana police are seizing FedEx packages containing cash
- sinuhe69 2y agoRebel bridge in real :)
- emmanueloga_ 2y agoGood action movie, I enjoyed it! [1]. -- 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebel_Ridge https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebel_Ridge
- calmbonsai 2y agoBreaking, civil forfeiture is uncivilized and should be unlawful.
- tbrownaw 2y agoIt does have (very very narrow) legitimate purpose, which is problematic abandoned property. Like say your age-of-sail ship has illegal stuff discovered by the customs inspectors, and everyone you can track down insists it isn't theirs. But that ends the moment someone says it's theirs, or there are records pointing to an owner who isn't actively hiding from you. This whole modern "prove where you got it from" bs is just theft.
- xbar 2y agoNope. It only invites corruption.
- tisdadd 2y agoIt is indeed. I know there are not as many who lived through the great depression now, but really cannot blame those who don't trust the banks. Also feel like we get taxed way more than we should be with many things getting taxed multiple times... Going to stop before going full rant. Innocent until proven guilty, not the other way around...
- ethbr1 2y agoPeople who don't trust banks don't understand fiat money, fractional reserve banking, and inflationary monetary policy.
- 1970-01-01 2y agoBanks can crash faster than you can adapt. It can be extremely hard to physically get to your savings money in a crisis.
- ethbr1 2y agoA bank failure + deposit insurance bust is a tail risk. Inflation is a constant. (And to pre-add, precious metals haven't historically been a great hedge either, when benchmarked against investing in economic growth)
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago> can be extremely hard to physically get to your savings money in a crisis Having spare cash around is never a bad idea. But there are precious few timelines in which the banking system collapses so completely that savings are inaccessible for extended periods (or at all) but paper U.S. dollars continue to hold value.
- alexey-salmin 2y agoNo one expects it to hold 100% of value, but even 10% of say $50k could be very helpful to live through the few months of the turmoil. Or to get to that foreign real estate which people recommend buying in comments on HN.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago> even 10% of say $50k could be very helpful to live through the few months of the turmoil. Or to get to that foreign real estate Genuinely curious for a single example of a collapsing country's fiat currency being useful for extradition. If this is actually your fail case, hold foreign currency.
- csomar 2y agoYou can have a different law for that: "abandoned property". Essentially, you get the property just by showing up and not suing for it.
- anigbrowl 2y agoCF forfeiture laws are in theory supposed to be used against contraband and related materials. Nobody* is going to claim a suitcase with 3 bricks of cocaine and $500k whose owner the police are very anxious to locate. * Nobody with a clue. Petty criminals do sometimes turn up at police stations looking for lost property of this kind and are then surprised to be arrested.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- 1123581321 2y agoThe law around freshly abandoned property, as declared by the police, would be nearly indistinguishable from reformed civil forfeiture.
- deathanatos 2y agoShould be unconstitutional. In fact I could have sworn there was this amendment specifically about seizures, and failing that, one about due process. If no crime has been committed and/or no charges have been filed or are going to be filed in a timely manner, then I fail to see on what basis the government gets to deprive someone of property.
- jandrewrogers 2y agoSeveral members of the US Supreme Court have already expressed strong skepticism about the Constitutionality of this practice but other parts of the government are very good at ensuring no case ever arrives there for it to be adjudicated. There is a parallel situation with the No Fly List, which is clearly unconstitutional in many cases but the Federal government is adroit at making sure no case with standing makes it to the USSC to be adjudicated, lest they lose this particular weapon.
- rkagerer 2y agoHow have they deflected cases? And how is this ongoing? Have they just not yet encountered someone with the means (and strong enough case) to fight it tooth and nail up the courts?
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago> how is this ongoing? The language is from Culley, which was decided last year [1]. I haven't seen any evidence that anyone is deflecting cases. Just that our judicial system is slow. [1] https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-585_k5fm.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-585_k5fm.pdf
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- adgjlsfhk1 2y agowhen someone has a strong enough case and means, you take the loss at the trial level (or before by dropping the case). That way the case never makes it to the district or supreme courts that can actually create precedent.
- helpfulclippy 2y agoI think it becomes more clear if we call it by its more traditional name, “robbery.” Unless it is at something like a traffic stop where it is done using the implied or explicit threat of force by a police officer — in which case, it is called “armed robbery.”
- juanani 2y ago[dead]
- fastball 2y agoCheck out the film "Rebel Ridge" on Netflix if you haven't seen it. Complete fiction but the story is kicked off / revolves around civi forfeiture (and it's a pretty good watch!)
- miles 2y ago> Working with the Institute for Justice[1], a nonprofit focused on civil liberties, Henry Minh alleges a widespread pattern of unlawful package seizures at Indy’s FedEx processing facility. The IJ does some amazing work. Highly recommend supporting them if their mission resonates with you. I always find something refreshing and uplifting in the bimonthly print magazine. EDIT: I cannot reply to metabagel's comment (due to it being flagged?) about IJ being "right wing" but here is a smattering of recent cases[2]: Institute for Justice Files Lawsuit Challenging Florida’s Ban on Cultivated Meat https://ij.org/case/florida-cultivated-meat-ban/ https://ij.org/case/florida-cultivated-meat-ban/ Courts Say City Owes Her Over $200,000; But Now She Has to Sue Again to Get Paid https://ij.org/case/oklahoma-takings/ https://ij.org/case/oklahoma-takings/ New petition asks Supreme Court to let woman’s suit against her abuser’s enabler move forward after nearly a decade in court. https://ij.org/case/martinez-v-high/ https://ij.org/case/martinez-v-high/ Lawsuit Seeks Accountability for Unconstitutional Raid of a Political Opponent’s Home. https://ij.org/case/marion-kansas-retaliation/ https://ij.org/case/marion-kansas-retaliation/ Virginia Woman Challenges Permanent Punishment Preventing Her from Working as a Substance Abuse Counselor https://ij.org/case/virginia-fresh-start-2/ https://ij.org/case/virginia-fresh-start-2/ Family seeks to hold officer accountable after he led SWAT raid at wrong house https://ij.org/case/texas-wrong-house-raid/ https://ij.org/case/texas-wrong-house-raid/ [1] https://ij.org/ https://ij.org/ [2] https://ij.org/cases/ https://ij.org/cases/
- metabagel 2y agoThey’re a right wing organization, so just bear in mind they are most concerned about property rights and the right to participate in the free market without burdensome regulation. Why is this downvoted and flagged? I didn’t say they are extreme right, but they clearly support conservative causes, including school vouchers. Am I wrong? They oppose government licensing. They stand up for the little guy against the government, but not against big corporations. I’m just saying, be aware what their agenda is before you sign on. And yes, in this case I absolutely agree with them. But, I wouldn’t support a lot of what they do.
- tbrownaw 2y ago> They’re a right wing organization, so just bear in mind they are most concerned about property rights and the right to participate in the free market without burdensome regulation. That description sounds more libertarian than right or left.
- CMYKninja 2y agoIt 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.
- frustacean 2y agoAt 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?
- vlovich123 2y agoNot 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.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- onemoretime69 2y ago[flagged]
- eatmebtches 2y ago[flagged]
- eatmebtches 2y ago[flagged]
- rustroxz 2y ago[flagged]
- ralph84 2y agoIsn’t the FedEx hub private property? What are the police even doing there? Did FedEx cut a deal with the police that they could hang out there and steal shit?
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- behringer 2y agoOh yes. They take a cut. Ever wonder how people get caught with 50k in cash in their cars. The banks turn them in.
- SoftTalker 2y agoThe banks are required to report cash transactions in excess of $10K. They don't have a choice and likely would not if it was up to them.
- giantg2 2y agoAren't they only required to report that the IRS, not police? Also, having $50k on you with a bank receipt is generally a non-issue.
- SoftTalker 2y agoIt's reported to the IRS, and also to the Department of the Treasury Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, according to the Form 8300.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- paranoidrobot 2y agoIt generally doesn't matter what evidence you have about the cash on you, it won't stop US law enforcement seizing it from you through Civil Asset Forfeiture. Bank receipts, specifically don't help.
- JumpCrisscross 2y agoThe test case for tanking this behaviour seems almost too easy to set up. Pick a series of organisations across the political spectrum. Think tanks, civil rights outfits, charities, et cetera. (Nothing explicitly partisan.) Overzealously document a donation to each, have them each confirm their acceptance in writing and then settle each donation in cash via FedEx. (Round 2, donating to candidates via cash the cops steal, is more tricky to set up since you'd need separate donor-candidate pairs across the partisan spectrum to make it work well.)
- wakawaka28 2y agoThere is no shortage of cases to fight. What this issue really needs is some big cases to go all the way to the Supreme Court and then to have the right precedent set. It boggles the mind how this has not happened yet, probably because the agencies involved would rather settle than go to the top and have their racket destroyed.
- gonzo41 2y agothen to have the right precedent set.... There's a big assumption that natural justice will prevail.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago> a big assumption that natural justice will prevail Gorsuch and Thomas's concurring opinion in Culley [1] all but tips the Court's hand. (Sotomayor, Kagan and Jackson dissent more strongly.) [1] https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-585_k5fm.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-585_k5fm.pdf page 18
- buzer 2y agoFrom what I understand what generally happens is that if you start fighting it (especially with help from some non-profit that would like to get some case law settled) they will quickly drop the suit and return the cash. At that point they say you no longer have standing. https://youtu.be/WmVFud7v2r4?t=1020 https://youtu.be/WmVFud7v2r4?t=1020
- riffic 2y agoIs there any reason why the FedEx building has such a tight relationship with police?
- meling 2y agoIt said in the article; drugs.
- SoftTalker 2y agoAnd the money in this case was probably drug money. Who else buys gold chains for cash in that amount and sends it in a box via FedEx? But, it should be the burden of the state to prove it, not seize it based on suspicion.
- big-green-man 2y agoAll big private shippers have a close relationship with police. USPS, since it's government owned, they have to have a warrant to open your packages. Private shippers just give permission. Don't ask me how things got so backwards, it makes no sense to me, I never gave UPS ownership of my property in transit, but somehow they can give permission outside legal procedure to search my property. You ever wondered why, you can't ship cape products through USPS for example due to an executive order, but UPS and FedEx also won't let you do it? Did you know that they created that rule the same moment the executive order was signed, independently? Strange world we live in.
- jfim 2y agoWhat's a cape product? A Google search doesn't return anything that would appear to make sense here.
- big-green-man 2y agoAutocorrect. Vape.
- rodrigosetti 2y agoThey should've used crypto
- kennywinker 2y agoCivil forfeiture also applies to crypto.
- big-green-man 2y agoYeah, but it wouldn't be getting seized at a FedEx distribution center if it weren't an envelope of cash.
- chrisco255 2y agoStable coins can be frozen. And even BTC can be traced to whatever centralized exchange it eventually ends up at.
- OutOfHere 2y agoFirst they have to identify the BTC.
- which 2y agoIf you actually read the article, they weren't doing anything illegal... that's why IJ is giving them legal representation. The government would have a harder time seizing stablecoins because they couldn't say "well a K9 indicated there was drug residue on the bills" or whatever.
- dylan604 2y agoYou better have your $5 wrench available to get access though. It's not like they can just take the briefcase or duffel bag full of crypto away from you.
- kotaKat 2y agoNo, they should have placed the cash in a box and sent it via USPS Registered Mail. Then it requires the feds themselves to interfere to open the package. Plus, Registered Mail has a full chain of custody as the item becomes a fully accountable item within the mail stream that is signed for at every single touch along the way.
- Brett_Riverboat 2y agoNothing to see here folks, this definitely is not just another violent gang stealing from the populace with zero repercussions. It's a state sanctioned violent gang that also happens to be completely immune from any sort of responsibility. Totally different things.
- bb88 2y agoI'm wondering if the Indiana police train their drug dogs with the scent of cash as well.
- more_corn 2y agoAll contraband dogs are trained to alert on cash.
- eru 2y agoSounds plausible, but do you have any sources?
- standardUser 2y agoDogs absolutely can be and are trained to detect cash. A better question might be, what can't dogs be trained to sniff out? https://www.akc.org/expert-advice/news/meet-currency-detector-dog-made-2-4m-canadian-government/ https://www.akc.org/expert-advice/news/meet-currency-detecto...
- more_corn 2y agoCivil forfeiture is fucking bullshit and should not be legal. Cops steal more money from Americans than burglars do.
- 93po 2y agobiggest theft every single year is stolen wages by employers from employees
- kristjansson 2y agoSure, but this clear whataboutism? But also inexplicable whataboutism?
- dotancohen 2y agoI think that his point was, if you want to fight against sanctioned stealing then there is a more effective target to attack.
- kristjansson 2y agoLarger, sure, but it's not obvious to me the resources would be better spent on labor law violations than on egregious forfeitures? They're both pretty piecemeal, small-dollar fights that in aggregate take billions of dollars each out of people's pockets. Mostly I was shocked/amused at the juxtaposition of apparent opinions. "Cops are abusing people? Well what about about the employers abusing people?" is just a weird stance to take?
- dotancohen 2y ago> Mostly I was shocked/amused at the juxtaposition of apparent opinions. "Cops are abusing people? Well what about about the employers abusing people?" is just a weird stance to take? Possibly. But focusing on a small target yet ignoring a large target then complaining "whataboutism" is a common tactic when harming the target, not the started goal, is the motive for action. Though in this case I don't suspect that your motive is to harm the police, your grey comment suggests that enough other people do.
- jay-barronville 2y agoTo be clear, the state uses the verb “seize” as a more polite alternative to “steal” when referring to its own actions. We all should just be good Americans and let them “seize” whatever they want!
- throwaway984393 2y ago[dead]
- lysp 2y ago"The practice allows law enforcement to confiscate property from people suspected of criminal activity, even if they haven’t been charged with an offense." Suspected of criminal activity due to "money existing". It should be a very simple procedure. I have no issue with the seizure itself. What should come next is the police ask the person or business to explain it. They show an invoice / receipt, and the money is logged and returned promptly.
- rsoto2 2y agofrom wiki -> Victims often have "long legal struggles to get their money back".[35] One estimate was that only one percent of federally taken property is ever returned to their former owners.[43]
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago"Really, it’s hard not to wonder whether some current civil forfeiture practices represent much less than a revival of the archaic common-law deodand. The deodand required the forfeiture of any object responsible for a death—say, a knife, cart, or horse—to the Crown. Today, the idea seems much the same even if the practice now sweeps more broadly, requiring almost any object involved in almost any serious offense to be surrendered to the government in amends. The hardships deodands often imposed seem more than faintly familiar, too. Deodands required forfeiture regardless of the fault of the owner, himself sometimes the deceased. Not infrequently, the practice left impoverished families without the means to support themselves, faced not only with the loss of a loved one but also with the loss of a horse or perhaps a cart essential to their livelihoods. Sometimes grieving families could persuade authorities or juries to forgo a deodand, but often not, and generally the burden to avoid a deodand was on them. As time went on, too, curiously familiar financial incentives wormed their way into the system. Originally, the Crown was supposed to pass the deodand (literally, a thing given to God) onto the church 'as an expiation for the sou[l]' of the deceased. Over time, though, the Crown increasingly chose instead to sell off its rights to deodands to local lords and others. These recipients inevitably wound up with a strong interest in the perpetuation of the enterprise. Ultimately, the deodand’s appeal faded in England, and this Court has held that it 'did not become part of the common-law tradition of this country.' But has something not wholly unlike it gradually reemerged in our own lifetimes? [1]" [1] https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-585_k5fm.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-585_k5fm.pdf Gorsuch's concurrence, beginning on page 18
- kristjansson 2y agoGorsuch's full opinion is worth the read, for this and the other historical notes on the origins of forfeiture.
- phkahler 2y agoIn related news, police robbing armored cars: https://youtu.be/9GKg1UucxNc?si=2eWCX7hjfYPNt9Lk https://youtu.be/9GKg1UucxNc?si=2eWCX7hjfYPNt9Lk
- blindriver 2y agoWhy has this never been found unconstitutional by the Supreme Court? Have they ever ruled on civil forfeiture? That sounds like the opposite of constitutional, it's assuming that someone is committing a crime without any evidence.
- aidenn0 2y agoIANAL, but they have ruled many times on Civil Forfeiture The TL;DR: 1. If property is confiscated as part of punishment for a crime (e.g. places that make you forfeit your car if you get a DUI), then it is subject to the 8th amendment. 2. If the property itself is suspected of being a criminal tool (e.g. money earned illegally), then it is not. 3. Since in #2, it is a civil case against property (rather than a criminal case against a person), the property has no right to an attorney, and the burden of proof is merely "preponderance of the evidence" (i.e. neither side is privileged for evidence). There are also other more lenient due-process rules compared to a criminal case. So, for example, in a criminal case if the government's entire case is "this looks suspicious" then the defense can be "you haven't proved anything" but in a civil case, the defense would have to offer enough evidence to outweigh the suspicion. And since there is no right to representation, the defendant has to find and pay for their own lawyer.
- kergonath 2y agoThat is ridiculous. The idea that you can go after someone’s possessions to avoid due process is bonkers. The whole idea of civil forfeiture is archaic and should be inconceivable in a country presumably ruled by law, with its completely arbitrary character and unaccountable enforcers.
- qingcharles 2y agoThere is due process. It's just not the same standard as a criminal case. Usually it starts with the prosecutor mailing out a letter, which if you miss it means you're screwed.
- jandrese 2y ago
- BrenBarn 2y agoThe tragicomic aspect of civil forfeiture is that it rarely seems to be used to seize large and valuable assets used to commit low-level white-collar crimes. For instance, if a dirtbag landlord doesn't keep his property maintained, why not seize that?
- stevebmark 2y agoIt's hard to empathize with the people mailing that much cash. It's an inherently careless and risky thing to do, and mailing that much cash is very obviously (and ironically) done to avoid taxes and legitimate business transactions.
- jakelazaroff 2y agoIt’s actually pretty easy for me to empathize with them. FedEx is pretty reliable. It wouldn’t surprise me to hear that the biggest inherent risk in mailing cash was police stealing it.
- kristjansson 2y agoThat's a very weak reason to allow the state to tie up property ~indefinitely on the basis of ~nothing.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- caeril 2y agoI couldn't agree more. I bet the guys doing this don't even get their shoes shined or a proper haircut. People who do things differently from us deserve to get railroaded by the system. Reminds me of a passage in an op-ed in the SF Chronicle several decades ago: "It's hard to empathize with the people engaging in homosexuality. It's an inherently careless and risky thing to do, and meeting up in gay-friendly districts is very obviously (and ironically) done to avoid public decency orders and legitimate family formation." A man ahead of his time, if you ask me. We need to ensure that those who fail to lick the boot hard enough should be separated from their tongues.
- welzel 2y agoThis is standard practice in basically every country. Try to cross a border with a pile of cash and see what happens. Police finds a box of cash in your car? You better explain where it came from and why you drive it around. There is so much weird hate for the government in the comments, but please provide a single sane scenario where you need to send cash instead of a bank transfer that is not about avoiding laws/taxes. There are NONE. You send the cash because you did something against the law. So by all means, the police should keep the money until you simple prove the non-existing totally legit reason why you could not use a bank transfer. I understand the problem with this, but you don´t prove that you are innocent; but large amounts of cash are usually connected to crime and it is your job to explain why not.
- jay-barronville 2y ago> This is standard practice in basically every country. The United States is NOT every country. We have a Constitution that makes this behavior unacceptable. > So by all means, the police should keep the money until you simple prove the non-existing totally legit reason why you could not use a bank transfer. I understand the problem with this, but you don´t prove that you are innocent; but large amounts of cash are usually connected to crime and it is your job to explain why not. Once again, I’m not sure where you’re from, but here in America, we’re innocent until proven guilty, and that’s a pretty big deal. Also, the burden of proof is on law enforcement to prove that a citizen is guilty of a crime, not on the citizen to prove that they’re innocent. Legally, it’s entirely irrelevant that you or anyone in law enforcement believe it to be strange that someone is either carrying large amounts of cash or sending cash via mail—it’s perfectly legal behavior. My grandma has never ever put a single dollar in the bank, because she doesn’t trust them. I don’t have her experience, but she should be able to do as she pleases with her cash without law enforcement treating her as a criminal just so they can steal her money. It’s that simple. > large amounts of cash are usually connected to crime Do you have a source for that assertion?
- bozhark 2y agoActually there are plenty, all it requires is that you want to.
- 2y ago
- OutOfHere 2y agoThe police steal it because they can. As things progress down this route, the police will soon be doing more things just because they can. Already they've been seizing cars in Florida from people who haven't even been charged with anything. The way things are going, soon the police will start holding people hostage without charges, asking for ransom from the person's bank account. Since the President and the Supreme Court both don't care, there is no limit here to how far the police can go.
- fanf2 2y agoThe cops have been stealing Teslas in Oakland claiming that the car might have been a witness to a crime https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41439168 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41439168 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41442085 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41442085
- beAbU 2y agoWhy do people send cash with FedEx?
- xenospn 2y agoSame reason they use crypto.
- Ferret7446 2y agoWhat reason is that? So the authorities can't intercept it? This post kinda contradicts that.
- dominicrose 2y agoIn France it's simply not legal to send cash through the mail. We barely use cash anyway. Sorry to blame the victim and it's easy to say that now but they shouldn't send $43k via FedEx.
- bheadmaster 2y ago> Sorry to blame the victim and it's easy to say that now but they shouldn't send $43k via FedEx. Why?
- meepmorp 2y agoI thought they explained it pretty clearly: since it's not legal to FedEx $43k in France, everyone in Indiana should've expected this turn of events.
- caeril 2y agoThis is an important point, and something that HN should really take to heart. It's legal to buy and sell slaves in some parts of Libya, therefore slavery is good. People are quick to forget that the morality of any given action should always be judged by its legality in any random jurisdiction.
- DebtDeflation 2y agoThis seems to represent a significant escalation in the use of civil forfeiture. Reminder: it is not a crime to possess or mail cash. In the case of using civil forfeiture against a driver pulled over while driving down a highway, the police will concoct a "totality of circumstances" narrative to explain why they thought the money was the proceeds of illegal activity. In the case of a package of cash being intercepted at FedEx, what other "circumstances" are there for them to concoct?
- nyc_data_geek1 2y agoBitcoin fixes this
- hermannj314 2y agoCould an America where cash and it's movement was as sacred as speech be viable? My naive take is that people can carry large amounts of cash, mail it, burn it, who cares? I use cash to do things I don't want traced to me, that's the point. Many communities live at the fringe or beyond of what society deems acceptable and cash is a great tool for those communities to do their thing. Civil asset forfeiture is an attack on marginalized people.
- treebeard901 2y agoFedEx is one of the few private companies with its own police force.
- Nasrudith 2y agoTo be frank in the past we had the right idea with how to deal with highway robbers, hanging them, shooting them, or beheading them. We didn't give them the fucking blessing of the law!