Indiana police are seizing FedEx packages containing cash
Indiana police are accused of routinely seizing cash-filled FedEx packages at a major Indianapolis hub under civil asset forfeiture laws, even when no drugs are found and no criminal charges are filed. Commenters debate the legality and ethics of treating mailed cash as presumptively illicit, the role of drug-sniffing dogs and private carriers, and the broader constitutionality of civil forfeiture in light of due process and Fourth Amendment protections. Many see the case, now backed by the Institute for Justice, as emblematic of a perverse revenue incentive that disproportionately harms ordinary people and small businesses.
Civil Forfeiture and Constitutionality
- Many commenters call civil asset forfeiture “state-sanctioned robbery,” arguing it reverses “innocent until proven guilty” and violates the 4th and 5th Amendments (unreasonable seizures, lack of due process).
- Others note SCOTUS has repeatedly upheld versions of forfeiture: distinguishing criminal punishment (subject to 8th Amendment limits) from civil cases against the property itself, with lower burdens of proof and fewer protections.
- Several cite recent Supreme Court opinions (especially Culley) where justices on both left and right express skepticism and compare modern forfeiture to archaic “deodand” practices.
- There is frustration that cases are often mooted or settled before reaching SCOTUS, preventing strong precedents.
FedEx, Cash, and the Fourth Amendment
- FedEx policy prohibits shipping cash, but commenters stress this is a contract issue, not a crime and not a justification for police seizure.
- Debate over whether private carriers can consent to searches on customers’ behalf; USPS first‑class mail is seen as having stronger constitutional protection.
- Some argue this kind of routine package sniffing/searching looks like a blanket search and is 4A‑problematic; others point out users “agree” via fine print and that only a tiny fraction of packages are seized.
Police Practices, K‑9 Units, and Incentives
- Strong suspicion that drug/currency‑sniffing dogs are used to manufacture probable cause; studies and anecdotes about handlers unconsciously cueing dogs are mentioned.
- Commenters discuss how forfeiture cases are filed against the money (“State v. $50,000”), with reversed burden of proof, high legal costs, and widespread use of “equitable sharing” between local and federal agencies.
- Some note legitimate uses (e.g., recovering scam proceeds overseas) but see those as narrow exceptions misused to justify broad abusive practice.
Politics, Libertarian Groups, and NGOs
- Institute for Justice (IJ) is widely praised for fighting forfeiture and other government overreach; some label it libertarian or “right‑wing,” others dispute partisan framing.
- FIRE is mentioned as effective on free‑speech litigation but criticized for some public positions and rankings.
Risk, Cash Use, and Alternatives
- Some say mailing large cash is inherently risky and often tied to tax avoidance or illegality; others point out it is legal and sometimes used by people who distrust banks.
- Suggested safer options: USPS Registered Mail, foreign currencies/assets for tail‑risk scenarios, or crypto (though commenters note crypto and stablecoins can also be frozen or seized).