"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.<p>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.<p>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]"<p>[1] <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-585_k5fm.pdf" rel="nofollow">https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-585_k5fm.pdf</a> <i>Gorsuch's concurrence, beginning on page 18</i>
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?
The 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.
Why 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.
> 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.<p>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.<p>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]:<p><i>Institute for Justice Files Lawsuit Challenging Florida’s Ban on Cultivated Meat</i> <a href="https://ij.org/case/florida-cultivated-meat-ban/" rel="nofollow">https://ij.org/case/florida-cultivated-meat-ban/</a><p><i>Courts Say City Owes Her Over $200,000; But Now She Has to Sue Again to Get Paid</i> <a href="https://ij.org/case/oklahoma-takings/" rel="nofollow">https://ij.org/case/oklahoma-takings/</a><p><i>New petition asks Supreme Court to let woman’s suit against her abuser’s enabler move forward after nearly a decade in court.</i> <a href="https://ij.org/case/martinez-v-high/" rel="nofollow">https://ij.org/case/martinez-v-high/</a><p><i>Lawsuit Seeks Accountability for Unconstitutional Raid of a Political Opponent’s Home.</i> <a href="https://ij.org/case/marion-kansas-retaliation/" rel="nofollow">https://ij.org/case/marion-kansas-retaliation/</a><p><i>Virginia Woman Challenges Permanent Punishment Preventing Her from Working as a Substance Abuse Counselor</i> <a href="https://ij.org/case/virginia-fresh-start-2/" rel="nofollow">https://ij.org/case/virginia-fresh-start-2/</a><p><i>Family seeks to hold officer accountable after he led SWAT raid at wrong house</i> <a href="https://ij.org/case/texas-wrong-house-raid/" rel="nofollow">https://ij.org/case/texas-wrong-house-raid/</a><p>[1] <a href="https://ij.org/" rel="nofollow">https://ij.org/</a><p>[2] <a href="https://ij.org/cases/" rel="nofollow">https://ij.org/cases/</a>
The 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, <i>et cetera</i>. (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.<p>(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.)
Could 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?<p>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.<p>Civil asset forfeiture is an attack on marginalized people.
In related news, police robbing armored cars:<p><a href="https://youtu.be/9GKg1UucxNc?si=2eWCX7hjfYPNt9Lk" rel="nofollow">https://youtu.be/9GKg1UucxNc?si=2eWCX7hjfYPNt9Lk</a>
This 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?
To be clear, the state uses the verb “seize” as a more polite alternative to “steal” when referring to its own actions.<p>We all should just be good Americans and let them “seize” whatever they want!
To 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!
In 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.
Nothing to see here folks, this definitely is not just another violent gang stealing from the populace with zero repercussions.<p>It's a <i>state sanctioned</i> violent gang that also happens to be completely immune from any sort of responsibility.<p>Totally different things.
The 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?
It'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.
"The practice allows law enforcement to confiscate property from people suspected of criminal activity, even if they haven’t been charged with an offense."<p>Suspected of criminal activity due to "money existing".<p>It should be a very simple procedure.<p>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.
This is standard practice in basically <i>every</i> 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.<p>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.<p>There are NONE. You send the cash because you did something against the law.<p>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 <i>usually</i> connected to crime and it is your job to explain why not.
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.