undefined | Better HN

0 pointsbig-green-man1y ago0 comments

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.

0 comments

rtpg1y ago

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-manOP1y ago

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.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse