If you are thinking that this looks like an end-run round the fourth amendment, then you have 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.
> “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.
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.
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://www.vice.com/read/i-interviewed-the-fraudster-who-fra...
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.
Can we stop jerking about how the cops are the REAL criminals here? DPR was in no way a good person.
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.
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.
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.
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.