10 ms·

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 yo

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.

frustacean 2y ago
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?
- vlovich123 2y ago
  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.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - onemoretime69 2y ago
    [flagged]
  - eatmebtches 2y ago
    [flagged]
  - eatmebtches 2y ago
    [flagged]
  - rustroxz 2y ago
    [flagged]
  - rustroxz 2y ago
    [flagged]
  - unethical_ban 2y ago
    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.
- tbrownaw 2y ago
  > 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 2y ago
    > The feds The plaintiff "is pursuing a class action lawsuit against the state of Indiana." No evidence of any Feds being involved.
  - DannyBee 2y ago
    The feds were not part of this - it was state proceedings.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > 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 2y ago
    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 2y ago
      > SCOTUS these days also tends to equate cash as a form of political speech No, it does not.
      - vlovich123 2y ago
        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 2y ago
        > 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.)
- AngryData 2y ago
  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.
- DannyBee 2y ago
  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.
  - mh- 2y ago
    > 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 2y ago
bogantech 2y ago
Does that give the police free reign to steal it?
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- keeptryinglol 2y ago
  I mean, I, for one, sleep a lot better knowing that money isn't just flying around in trucks.
  - lannisterstark 2y ago
    Do you? Because money IS flying around in trucks. How do you think stores and banks get the money for their safes? Magic?
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- frustacean 2y ago
  [flagged]
- timnetworks 2y ago
  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.)
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- onemoretime69 2y ago
keeptryinglol 2y ago
[flagged]
Danjoe4 2y ago
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 2y ago
  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.
  - big-green-man 2y ago
    I know how to square the privacy question with this, and you do too. Money laundering is trivial regardless.
    - rtpg 2y ago
      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.
MattGaiser 2y ago
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.
NotACop182 2y ago
Sounds like something FedEx would say
Shadowmist 2y ago
That policy can be negotiated if you are shipping enough, but nobody tells those associates because they don’t want them stealing the cash.
afavour 2y ago
[flagged]

frustacean 2y ago

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?

vlovich123 2y ago
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.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- onemoretime69 2y ago
  [flagged]
- eatmebtches 2y ago
  [flagged]
- eatmebtches 2y ago
  [flagged]
- rustroxz 2y ago
  [flagged]
- rustroxz 2y ago
  [flagged]
- unethical_ban 2y ago
  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.
tbrownaw 2y ago
> 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 2y ago
  > The feds The plaintiff "is pursuing a class action lawsuit against the state of Indiana." No evidence of any Feds being involved.
- DannyBee 2y ago
  The feds were not part of this - it was state proceedings.
JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> 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 2y ago
  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 2y ago
    > SCOTUS these days also tends to equate cash as a form of political speech No, it does not.
    - vlovich123 2y ago
      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 2y ago
        > 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.)
AngryData 2y ago
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.
DannyBee 2y ago
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.
- mh- 2y ago
  > 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 2y ago

bogantech 2y ago

Does that give the police free reign to steal it?

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
keeptryinglol 2y ago
I mean, I, for one, sleep a lot better knowing that money isn't just flying around in trucks.
- lannisterstark 2y ago
  Do you? Because money IS flying around in trucks. How do you think stores and banks get the money for their safes? Magic?
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
frustacean 2y ago
[flagged]
timnetworks 2y ago
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.)
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
onemoretime69 2y ago

keeptryinglol 2y ago

[flagged]

Danjoe4 2y ago

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 2y ago
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.
- big-green-man 2y ago
  I know how to square the privacy question with this, and you do too. Money laundering is trivial regardless.
  - rtpg 2y ago
    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.

MattGaiser 2y ago

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.

NotACop182 2y ago

Sounds like something FedEx would say

Shadowmist 2y ago

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

afavour 2y ago

[flagged]