7 ms·

Isn’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 ago
Oh 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 ago
  The 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 ago
    Aren'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 ago
      It'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 ago
      It 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.
      - giantg2 2y ago
        Source?
        paranoidrobot 2y ago
        There's been plenty already provided in the thread. Plenty of cases where random traffic stops and airport "additional screening" checks have resulted in cash being seized, even when someone has sufficient evidence that they withdrew it from a bank. In Civil Asset Forfeiture cases the burden of proof is reversed (i.e the cash is presumed guilty). Simply having a bank receipt doesn't prove innocence of the cash, and the law enforcement officers who seize it will just do so and claim that you were about to do something criminal with it. It's on you to prove - in court, by filing a lawsuit - how you came by it, how it was to be used in legitimate activity. Even then, if you 100% prevail, you're still liable for all of your costs for doing this. If you had to file a Federal case (because local/state authorities can, and will, send it to some federal agency and get 80% of it back in a sharing-arrangement) then your costs for getting your money back are increased even further.
    - jazzyjackson 2y ago
      Cash transactions over 10k are also reported to FinCEN via Currency Transaction Reports [0] > Also, having $50k on you with a bank receipt is generally a non-issue. You have personal experience? The whole issue of Asset Forfeiture surrounds non-drug-dealing persons regularly having their cash seized under the assumption that they must be drug dealers while skipping the inconvenient step of pressing charges. "A 2020 study found that the median cash forfeiture in 21 states which track such data was $1,300."[2] [0] https://www.fincen.gov/sites/default/files/shared/CTRPamphlet.pdf https://www.fincen.gov/sites/default/files/shared/CTRPamphle... [1] https://www.wunc.org/news/2021-06-15/asset-forfeiture-creates-perverse-incentive-police-profit-north-carolina https://www.wunc.org/news/2021-06-15/asset-forfeiture-create... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_forfeiture_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_forfeiture_in_the_United...
      - lazide 2y ago
        You need to show the cash came from a legitimate source if you’re transporting it. (Not okay, but it is what it is) Coming directly out of a bank (and hence tracked by the gov’t already) is a legitimate source. If you have a receipt showing you just withdrew it from a bank account, even if they’re stupid enough to seize it, the court is going to give it right back to you - along with a civil settlement.
        bigiain 2y ago
        [flagged]
        lazide 2y ago
        And plenty of attorneys would take a case like that on contingency if you would present even halfway decently in court, and win - and get you a nice payout on top of it. Since they can say ‘Your honor, the prosecution can not identify any articulable factual basis, or even concrete suspicion as to why they should have seized my clients money. The money my client just withdrew from the bank that he earned lawfully, paid taxes on, was held in a regulated institution, and that he intended to use for lawful purposes. In fact, as is clear from opposing councils arguments, they not only didn’t even attempt to investigate to discover if a lawful basis existed to seize my clients funds, they actively ignored documentation that my client attempted to provide them showing the funds were from a legal source. Additionally, it’s clear they have since been unable to identify any lawful reason besides a generic ‘my training and experience says this was okay’, and in fact are not even able to identify which parts of their training and experience support it, even with x months of time. This is in violation of the federal rules around these seizures (cut and paste the sections), and their own policies (cut-n-paste from their policy book). Additionally, that they persist in not only defending these tactics, but continuing to keep my law abiding clients funds, shows a complete and continuing disregard for the law, my clients rights as a law abiding citizen of this great nation, their own policies, and the integrity of this court. ’ If they still persisted (historically they haven’t, even in far more ambiguous cases), I can’t imagine a judge being unsympathetic to punitive damages (3x) on top of everything else. It wouldn’t be hard to make an argument that literal criminal gangs are less dangerous to society than a police agency acting that way in such a case.
  - bozhark 2y ago
    That’s true, but they don’t call the cops
    - behringer 2y ago
      wish I could see your face the day the news that drops that bomb on us :D
  - josephd79 2y ago
    so just withdraw $9999 at a time? Is that how I stay under the radar?
    - throw16180339 2y ago
      Consistent withdrawals just under the limit are also reported.
    - meowster 2y ago
      That's called "structuring" and is illegal.
DannyBee 2y ago
Fedex doesn't get a choice. We'll assume for a second this was purely state to state (ie no customs involved) since that seems to be the case. Even then, they generally don't get involved unless a package smells funny, is leaking, or making noise. But if it does, it may get opened or dog sniffed or inspected (fedex itself generally does not open packages, they would set them aside. Chain of custody and all that. While they probably reserve the right to open whatever, the in-practice exceptions mostly about trying to find a receiver when the label/other identifying info is destroyed somehow.). There are also some amount of random checks. But to put this in perspective (and again, i think civil forfeiture is nutso), thi is is a fedex site that processes about 100k packages an hour. The state seized 134 packages in the past year. If they were inspecting any meaningful percent of packages, this would probably be 100x greater.
- blindriver 2y ago
  This sounds like a violation of the 4th amendment. You can't just generically search everything without any idea that a crime occurred.
  - pests 2y ago
    FedEx is a private company and you agree to the fine-print when you use their services.
    - starspangled 2y ago
      And the old "it's a private company they can do what they want" comes home to roost.
      - lagniappe 2y ago
        And the old "next, next, next, accept, I agree" comes home to roost.
      - pests 2y ago
        Its the law of the land we live in.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

behringer 2y ago

Oh 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 ago
The 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 ago
  Aren'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 ago
    It'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 ago
    It 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.
    - giantg2 2y ago
      Source?
      - paranoidrobot 2y ago
        There's been plenty already provided in the thread. Plenty of cases where random traffic stops and airport "additional screening" checks have resulted in cash being seized, even when someone has sufficient evidence that they withdrew it from a bank. In Civil Asset Forfeiture cases the burden of proof is reversed (i.e the cash is presumed guilty). Simply having a bank receipt doesn't prove innocence of the cash, and the law enforcement officers who seize it will just do so and claim that you were about to do something criminal with it. It's on you to prove - in court, by filing a lawsuit - how you came by it, how it was to be used in legitimate activity. Even then, if you 100% prevail, you're still liable for all of your costs for doing this. If you had to file a Federal case (because local/state authorities can, and will, send it to some federal agency and get 80% of it back in a sharing-arrangement) then your costs for getting your money back are increased even further.
  - jazzyjackson 2y ago
    Cash transactions over 10k are also reported to FinCEN via Currency Transaction Reports [0] > Also, having $50k on you with a bank receipt is generally a non-issue. You have personal experience? The whole issue of Asset Forfeiture surrounds non-drug-dealing persons regularly having their cash seized under the assumption that they must be drug dealers while skipping the inconvenient step of pressing charges. "A 2020 study found that the median cash forfeiture in 21 states which track such data was $1,300."[2] [0] https://www.fincen.gov/sites/default/files/shared/CTRPamphlet.pdf https://www.fincen.gov/sites/default/files/shared/CTRPamphle... [1] https://www.wunc.org/news/2021-06-15/asset-forfeiture-creates-perverse-incentive-police-profit-north-carolina https://www.wunc.org/news/2021-06-15/asset-forfeiture-create... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_forfeiture_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_forfeiture_in_the_United...
    - lazide 2y ago
      You need to show the cash came from a legitimate source if you’re transporting it. (Not okay, but it is what it is) Coming directly out of a bank (and hence tracked by the gov’t already) is a legitimate source. If you have a receipt showing you just withdrew it from a bank account, even if they’re stupid enough to seize it, the court is going to give it right back to you - along with a civil settlement.
      - bigiain 2y ago
        [flagged]
        lazide 2y ago
        And plenty of attorneys would take a case like that on contingency if you would present even halfway decently in court, and win - and get you a nice payout on top of it. Since they can say ‘Your honor, the prosecution can not identify any articulable factual basis, or even concrete suspicion as to why they should have seized my clients money. The money my client just withdrew from the bank that he earned lawfully, paid taxes on, was held in a regulated institution, and that he intended to use for lawful purposes. In fact, as is clear from opposing councils arguments, they not only didn’t even attempt to investigate to discover if a lawful basis existed to seize my clients funds, they actively ignored documentation that my client attempted to provide them showing the funds were from a legal source. Additionally, it’s clear they have since been unable to identify any lawful reason besides a generic ‘my training and experience says this was okay’, and in fact are not even able to identify which parts of their training and experience support it, even with x months of time. This is in violation of the federal rules around these seizures (cut and paste the sections), and their own policies (cut-n-paste from their policy book). Additionally, that they persist in not only defending these tactics, but continuing to keep my law abiding clients funds, shows a complete and continuing disregard for the law, my clients rights as a law abiding citizen of this great nation, their own policies, and the integrity of this court. ’ If they still persisted (historically they haven’t, even in far more ambiguous cases), I can’t imagine a judge being unsympathetic to punitive damages (3x) on top of everything else. It wouldn’t be hard to make an argument that literal criminal gangs are less dangerous to society than a police agency acting that way in such a case.
- bozhark 2y ago
  That’s true, but they don’t call the cops
  - behringer 2y ago
    wish I could see your face the day the news that drops that bomb on us :D
- josephd79 2y ago
  so just withdraw $9999 at a time? Is that how I stay under the radar?
  - throw16180339 2y ago
    Consistent withdrawals just under the limit are also reported.
  - meowster 2y ago
    That's called "structuring" and is illegal.

DannyBee 2y ago

Fedex doesn't get a choice. We'll assume for a second this was purely state to state (ie no customs involved) since that seems to be the case. Even then, they generally don't get involved unless a package smells funny, is leaking, or making noise. But if it does, it may get opened or dog sniffed or inspected (fedex itself generally does not open packages, they would set them aside. Chain of custody and all that. While they probably reserve the right to open whatever, the in-practice exceptions mostly about trying to find a receiver when the label/other identifying info is destroyed somehow.). There are also some amount of random checks. But to put this in perspective (and again, i think civil forfeiture is nutso), thi is is a fedex site that processes about 100k packages an hour. The state seized 134 packages in the past year. If they were inspecting any meaningful percent of packages, this would probably be 100x greater.

blindriver 2y ago
This sounds like a violation of the 4th amendment. You can't just generically search everything without any idea that a crime occurred.
- pests 2y ago
  FedEx is a private company and you agree to the fine-print when you use their services.
  - starspangled 2y ago
    And the old "it's a private company they can do what they want" comes home to roost.
    - lagniappe 2y ago
      And the old "next, next, next, accept, I agree" comes home to roost.
    - pests 2y ago
      Its the law of the land we live in.