5 ms·

Note how Curtis Green was raided: they delivered some drugs, then searched his house on the grounds that he was in possession of drugs. This is a standard US Po

by PaulAJ 11y ago

Note how Curtis Green was raided: they delivered some drugs, then searched his house on the grounds that he was in possession of drugs. This is a standard US Postal Inspectors tactic: it was used many years ago (see http://totse.mattfast1.com/en/law/high_profile_legal_cases/aabust.html http://totse.mattfast1.com/en/law/high_profile_legal_cases/a...) and it looks like it is still being used. If you are thinking that this looks like an end-run round the fourth amendment, then you have been paying attention.

mindslight 11y ago
If you think 'the nth amendment' is more effectful than than any other ad copy, then you haven't been paying attention. > he’d [DEA agent] loved the physical thrill of bursting through a door at 6 am in Doc Martens and a tactical vest, clearing some broke-down row house on some broke-down block and catching some dealer in the bathroom, cuffing the guy before he could wipe his ass In a just society, this criminal would be in jail or mental hospital (if he couldn't control his aggression). In ours, he's given a badge and a gun. Federal lawl enforcement organizations lost legitimacy decades ago, if they even ever had it (eg DEA, ATF). They should not be judged on the bad actors they do catch, but by the ones they create and the victims they steamroll with impunity (even a stopped clock is right twice a day). The only recourse a sane person has is to avoid helping, promoting, funding, or otherwise supporting their existence. I'd rather our society not fall apart, but the feedback loop became disconnected quite some time ago. The longer this cancer goes on, the uglier the transition.
tptacek 11y ago
It does not seem likely that evidence predicated on an unsolicited drug shipment from USPS would survive in court.
- fweespeech 11y ago
  http://theadvocate.com/home/7031641-125/postal-investigators-target-drug-trade http://theadvocate.com/home/7031641-125/postal-investigators... > “The trick is figuring out who’s supposed to receive it,” said Chief Deputy Tony Bacala of the Ascension Parish Sheriff’s Office, whose deputies arrested a St. Amant man in June after he accepted a package containing marijuana. > From there, law enforcement officials arranged for a “controlled delivery” of the package to Allen and later found marijuana, equipment used to cultivate marijuana and steroids during a search of his residence, authorities said. They don't seem to concerned about that part.
  - simplicio 11y ago
    Those weren't "unsolicited". The Feds intercepted them, and than let the delivery go through. But the packages originated with the Suspects business partners, not the Feds. The original article is annoyingly unclear, but I'm pretty sure that's the case with Green as well. The Feds didn't send a fake package, they just followed a package they'd interecpted. I don't really think there's a problem with this practice. Having a bunch of packages with drugs addressed to particular residence seems like reasonable grounds to get a search warrant for that residence.
    - fweespeech 11y ago
      The problem is, they aren't really proving they are "solicited". They are just proving they were sent to an address. I can ship 5 packages to your address and it'd trigger the search is the standard of evidence they are using. Its how people have been swatted. http://krebsonsecurity.com/2014/06/the-fly-has-been-swatted/ http://krebsonsecurity.com/2014/06/the-fly-has-been-swatted/ http://www.vice.com/read/i-interviewed-the-fraudster-who-frames-people-for-heroin-possession http://www.vice.com/read/i-interviewed-the-fraudster-who-fra... http://krebsonsecurity.com/2013/07/mail-from-the-velvet-cybercrime-underground/ http://krebsonsecurity.com/2013/07/mail-from-the-velvet-cybe... The only reason he didn't get swatted again was because he called the police because before it happened because he was monitoring the people. [Hint: He has been swatted before] This is precisely why this "standard of evidence" is such bullshit. It can be used to harass anyone and is.
  - smitherfield 11y ago
    Not unsolicited; it was a package he ordered and the police intercepted.
    - slowmotiony 11y ago
      So if I really hate my ex, I can just ship her drugs in a shitty package and tip the postal office? Is that really all it would take?
      - 11y ago
- paulajohnson 11y ago
  As I understand it the point isn't to prosecute for those drugs, as the recipient would have the defence of no guilty knowledge. Instead its to justify the search warrant, which merely requires probable cause that the drugs are on site.
bduerst 11y ago
This is why if you are purchasing something illegal online and shipping with USPS, you're supposed to wait a couple weeks to open the package. You're also not supposed to sign for these packages either, so getting them shipped to a personal mail box is usually better. You can claim you didn't know there were drugs in the package if you don't open it and don't sign for it.
- mindslight 11y ago
  Most people would open any package addressed to them, regardless of knowing who it was from. The idea that opening a package implies that you know its contents is yet another dubious legal fiction used to transmute the rule of law into the rule of gangs.
  - bduerst 11y ago
    Opening a package addressed to you is not a crime. Opening a package addressed to you with illegal items can leave you open to possession charges if you don't immediately report the items. There is some grey area involving whether or not you should know they are illegal, and is entirely up for interpretation - being gifted a bouquet of poppies is still different than holding on to a pillbox of opiates though.
    - mindslight 11y ago
      Immediately "report" - to whom? Of course I know the programmed response you're implying. But it's based on having an above-the-law ambient authority that does not exist in our basic legal system. Furthermore, the idea that a person is obligated to report anything at all to police is an anathema to a free society. By doing anything other than destroying it themselves, the recipient is engaging in conspiracy and distribution. You're also assuming they can quickly identify what the substance is, and also immediately understand every applicable law. Of course we're out in the weeds here, since we've accepted the premise that simply possessing a substance (with no mens rea) can be a criminal act! In an environment of legal contradictions you're never in the clear - you can only kowtow to the biggest gang and hope they're merciful. But let us not corrupt our own sanity by internalizing their farcical justifications.
_cpancake 11y ago
It's not, though. He ordered the drugs, meaning that all the needed was confirmation that it was really him that ordered the drugs - signing for the package is enough evidence. That's enough for an arrest anyways, and probably enough for probable cause. Can we stop jerking about how the cops are the REAL criminals here? DPR was in no way a good person.
s73v3r 11y ago
How is it an end run if you requested to receive the drugs in the first place?

by PaulAJ 11y ago

mindslight 11y ago

If you think 'the nth amendment' is more effectful than than any other ad copy, then you haven't been paying attention. > he’d [DEA agent] loved the physical thrill of bursting through a door at 6 am in Doc Martens and a tactical vest, clearing some broke-down row house on some broke-down block and catching some dealer in the bathroom, cuffing the guy before he could wipe his ass In a just society, this criminal would be in jail or mental hospital (if he couldn't control his aggression). In ours, he's given a badge and a gun. Federal lawl enforcement organizations lost legitimacy decades ago, if they even ever had it (eg DEA, ATF). They should not be judged on the bad actors they do catch, but by the ones they create and the victims they steamroll with impunity (even a stopped clock is right twice a day). The only recourse a sane person has is to avoid helping, promoting, funding, or otherwise supporting their existence. I'd rather our society not fall apart, but the feedback loop became disconnected quite some time ago. The longer this cancer goes on, the uglier the transition.

tptacek 11y ago

It does not seem likely that evidence predicated on an unsolicited drug shipment from USPS would survive in court.

fweespeech 11y ago
http://theadvocate.com/home/7031641-125/postal-investigators-target-drug-trade http://theadvocate.com/home/7031641-125/postal-investigators... > “The trick is figuring out who’s supposed to receive it,” said Chief Deputy Tony Bacala of the Ascension Parish Sheriff’s Office, whose deputies arrested a St. Amant man in June after he accepted a package containing marijuana. > From there, law enforcement officials arranged for a “controlled delivery” of the package to Allen and later found marijuana, equipment used to cultivate marijuana and steroids during a search of his residence, authorities said. They don't seem to concerned about that part.
- simplicio 11y ago
  Those weren't "unsolicited". The Feds intercepted them, and than let the delivery go through. But the packages originated with the Suspects business partners, not the Feds. The original article is annoyingly unclear, but I'm pretty sure that's the case with Green as well. The Feds didn't send a fake package, they just followed a package they'd interecpted. I don't really think there's a problem with this practice. Having a bunch of packages with drugs addressed to particular residence seems like reasonable grounds to get a search warrant for that residence.
  - fweespeech 11y ago
    The problem is, they aren't really proving they are "solicited". They are just proving they were sent to an address. I can ship 5 packages to your address and it'd trigger the search is the standard of evidence they are using. Its how people have been swatted. http://krebsonsecurity.com/2014/06/the-fly-has-been-swatted/ http://krebsonsecurity.com/2014/06/the-fly-has-been-swatted/ http://www.vice.com/read/i-interviewed-the-fraudster-who-frames-people-for-heroin-possession http://www.vice.com/read/i-interviewed-the-fraudster-who-fra... http://krebsonsecurity.com/2013/07/mail-from-the-velvet-cybercrime-underground/ http://krebsonsecurity.com/2013/07/mail-from-the-velvet-cybe... The only reason he didn't get swatted again was because he called the police because before it happened because he was monitoring the people. [Hint: He has been swatted before] This is precisely why this "standard of evidence" is such bullshit. It can be used to harass anyone and is.
- smitherfield 11y ago
  Not unsolicited; it was a package he ordered and the police intercepted.
  - slowmotiony 11y ago
    So if I really hate my ex, I can just ship her drugs in a shitty package and tip the postal office? Is that really all it would take?
    - 11y ago
paulajohnson 11y ago
As I understand it the point isn't to prosecute for those drugs, as the recipient would have the defence of no guilty knowledge. Instead its to justify the search warrant, which merely requires probable cause that the drugs are on site.

bduerst 11y ago

This is why if you are purchasing something illegal online and shipping with USPS, you're supposed to wait a couple weeks to open the package. You're also not supposed to sign for these packages either, so getting them shipped to a personal mail box is usually better. You can claim you didn't know there were drugs in the package if you don't open it and don't sign for it.

mindslight 11y ago
Most people would open any package addressed to them, regardless of knowing who it was from. The idea that opening a package implies that you know its contents is yet another dubious legal fiction used to transmute the rule of law into the rule of gangs.
- bduerst 11y ago
  Opening a package addressed to you is not a crime. Opening a package addressed to you with illegal items can leave you open to possession charges if you don't immediately report the items. There is some grey area involving whether or not you should know they are illegal, and is entirely up for interpretation - being gifted a bouquet of poppies is still different than holding on to a pillbox of opiates though.
  - mindslight 11y ago
    Immediately "report" - to whom? Of course I know the programmed response you're implying. But it's based on having an above-the-law ambient authority that does not exist in our basic legal system. Furthermore, the idea that a person is obligated to report anything at all to police is an anathema to a free society. By doing anything other than destroying it themselves, the recipient is engaging in conspiracy and distribution. You're also assuming they can quickly identify what the substance is, and also immediately understand every applicable law. Of course we're out in the weeds here, since we've accepted the premise that simply possessing a substance (with no mens rea) can be a criminal act! In an environment of legal contradictions you're never in the clear - you can only kowtow to the biggest gang and hope they're merciful. But let us not corrupt our own sanity by internalizing their farcical justifications.

_cpancake 11y ago

It's not, though. He ordered the drugs, meaning that all the needed was confirmation that it was really him that ordered the drugs - signing for the package is enough evidence. That's enough for an arrest anyways, and probably enough for probable cause. Can we stop jerking about how the cops are the REAL criminals here? DPR was in no way a good person.

s73v3r 11y ago

How is it an end run if you requested to receive the drugs in the first place?