Silk Road forums

Discussion => Security => Topic started by: Tommyhawk on February 15, 2012, 12:53 am

Title: Signing for packages controlled delivery DOES NOT mean you will get charged...
Post by: Tommyhawk on February 15, 2012, 12:53 am
I seem to see this floating around a lot on the forums, that if you sign for a package during a controlled delivery, then you're fucked..

While I have not personally experienced a controlled delivery, it just seems silly to think it automatically means you will get charged for the item being sent to you.

Nobody on here can tell me that sometime in their life they have never recieved a package to their house, that required signing, that they did not expect. This has happened to me numerous times as I grew up. I can account for over 15 times where I have received packages that I didn't order or didn't expect that I had to sign for. Whether they were gifts from relatives, some company sending something, or anything!

A normal person will not reject a package that is delivered to them unexpectedly and asks for a signature.

Signing for a package you didn't expect but the mail man brings to your door with your name on it, will not get you in trouble. In the average persons mind, the first thought that comes to their head will be, oo somebody sent me a package, can't wait to see what's inside! Signing for a package does NOT prove by any means that you were expecting it.

Any half decent lawyer will make it seem like nonsense to any jury if the prosecutor tries to say you're a drug trafficker because you signed for a package. It's utter nonsense. If I had somebody in my life I hated, I can spend a thousand or so dollars, frame a package or 2 with highly illegal substances and send it to them and tip off the police. If 'signing for a package' could get you jail time, it would be extremely easy for anybody to get their rivals in prison for a very long time, for this reason, signing for a package alone will not get you a charge. It will be thrown out very easily because there will be too many possible circumstances. 

On the other hand, you WILL be charged for the package if any of these things happen:
-Any trace of silk road happens to be found on your computer.
*Having a bitcoin wallet is not illegal and is not grounds for a charge. As a bitcoin vendor I know many people who trade bitcoins and have no knowledge of the silkroad.
-If they find ANY other illegal drugs in your house.

There are simple fixes for these type of things.

USE SECURITY. Use TrueCrypt. Don't keep any SR PGP keys on your computer when not using them.
If there are things that you simply cannot hide on your computer such as TrueCrypt, Simply say it is for porn - porn is one of the things I use it for.
DON'T HAVE DRUGS IN YOUR HOUSE ON THE DAY OF THE DELIVERY. This should be a fucking obvious. If you are knowingly waiting for a package, that is far greater than a personal amount(trafficking amount), then don't have other drugs in your house!

if SWIM was waiting for a pound of cannabis to be delivered to them, and knew the expected delivery date, and knew due to the amount a signature would be required regardless, don't you think it would be smart to have all of your other drugs... NOT at your house? I mean, I don't know how many times I should have to point this out.

If you cover these basic bases, a controlled delivery should be the last thing you are even remotely afraid of.

-Minimize your traces of SR on your computer, and even traces that you need(TrueCrypt) have an excuse ready for it if asked, such as porn.
-Do not have any drugs in your house or property on the days you are expecting the package.
-Oh, and do not check the tracking number from house, or from an out of state proxy.

An out of state proxy may cause the package to be flagged for checking(while unlikely, it's possible).

What I do, when I feel I must check a tracking number, I will do so from a cheap netbook I got($150), from a local McDonalds or Starbucks hotspot (WHILE STAYING IN MY CAR). This way, there's always that possible defense that some jackass who hates you tried to send drugs to your house to get you arrested.

Seem simple enough guise? Don't be stupid and ordering drugs on the SR is safer than you think.

Please post any criticism, I am open to all ideas and possible flaws in my reasoning.
Title: Re: Signing for packages controlled delivery DOES NOT mean you will get charged...
Post by: kmfkewm on February 15, 2012, 01:34 am
Your logic is perfectly fine but the problem is you are assuming that LE use logic. Or that the jury will use logic. Or that it will ever make it to a jury. In reality signing for the package means you accept ownership of the package, and even though it might be possible to argue against this in court, in practice they usually try to get you to sign for it (even if it is sent in a way that doesn't require signature). If signing for it wasn't bad for you, they wouldn't bother trying to get your signature.
Title: Re: Signing for packages controlled delivery DOES NOT mean you will get charged...
Post by: Tommyhawk on February 15, 2012, 01:52 am
My knowledge has always been that they try to get you to sign for the package to catch you right there on the spot. Anyone can wait days to get it out of their mailbox.

You're right, the LE might not be using logic. That's what a lawyer is for. The lawyers purpose is to paint an obvious picture of the situation that says you're not guilty, or one that says it would be completely stupid to assume this person ordered any kind of drugs.

For instance, if a business owner who receives a lot of unexpected mail on a weekly basis, and he signed for a package with drugs in it, how could he be responsible for it? He couldn't be. He gets mail all the time.

Same goes with any other person. I know people who get so much mail which they weren't expecting everyday that it's ridiculous. Ever heard of junk mail?

A simple signing of a package is not enough to say you were expecting the package. It's what you do afterwards that matters. Though chances are they wont let you go with the package if you've signed during a controlled delivery.

The whole point of the controller delivery is to get inside your house and prove you are a drug trafficker. With no drugs in your house, there's nothing they can do.

A simple package that was sent to you that you signed for when a mail man rang your doorbell asking for your signature, and the cops search your house and find nothing... there's nothing they can do. They can't pin the package on you unless they find something inside.

Again, no average law abiding citizen is going to think twice about a mail man at his door asking for his signature to receive a package somebody sent to him.
Title: Re: Signing for packages controlled delivery DOES NOT mean you will get charged...
Post by: envious on February 15, 2012, 02:05 am
Even if you are right in the long run (yet to see any cases prove this theory), it's still bad advice. Why even go to court if the charge can be avoided by simply not signing for a pack? Saves you money, time, and a lot of stress. It's pretty simple to realize no vendor in their right mind would send a pack this way. Sounds like PSYOPS to me.
Title: Re: Signing for packages controlled delivery DOES NOT mean you will get charged...
Post by: nopout on February 15, 2012, 02:22 am
Well even going on your advice I would think the best thing to do is NOT sign for the package so you have a better chance of getting to your computer and shutting it down before the feds get to it.
Title: Re: Signing for packages controlled delivery DOES NOT mean you will get charged...
Post by: Tommyhawk on February 15, 2012, 02:26 am
Even if you are right in the long run (yet to see any cases prove this theory), it's still bad advice. Why even go to court if the charge can be avoided by simply not signing for a pack? Saves you money, time, and a lot of stress. It's pretty simple to realize no vendor in their right mind would send a pack this way. Sounds like PSYOPS to me.

I'd like to see you try to order a package $2000+ without the vendor strongly suggesting you get a higher level of tracking that requires signature by default to ensure it doesn't get lost.

I guess I made this thread with more in mind of the people who have no choice but to use a method that requires signature. - Ordering from a foreign country for a $1000+ amount with express shipping. Some vendors require this or you forfeit their refund or insurance policy if your package gets lost in the mail.

There's been so many vendors I've talked to that require express that requires signature for the sake of their business so the buyer can't claim the package didn't come. These vendors were not LE. I've done much business with them.


I guess what I'm getting at, is there are some situations where it is better to use a method of shipping that requires a signature, for the sake of the vendor and buyer. This topic is to put the minds of people who do this at ease if they take proper steps to ensure their security.

Well even going on your advice I would think the best thing to do is NOT sign for the package so you have a better chance of getting to your computer and shutting it down before the feds get to it.

If you see or hear the mail man, shut down your computer..?
Title: Re: Signing for packages controlled delivery DOES NOT mean you will get charged...
Post by: kmfkewm on February 15, 2012, 02:31 am
Considering express packs are significantly more highly screened (particularly international express), and packs that require signature are more likely to get you arrested when you sign for them, I would simply avoid working with those vendors.
Title: Re: Signing for packages controlled delivery DOES NOT mean you will get charged...
Post by: envious on February 15, 2012, 02:38 am
I've worked with plenty of vendors. If one of them suggested to use signature confirmation I would abandon that relationship immediately. No one that knows what they are doing does that. The pack is much more likely to make it to you fine firet class, and you will be more likely to know if its a controlled delivery.
Title: Re: Signing for packages controlled delivery DOES NOT mean you will get charged...
Post by: Tommyhawk on February 15, 2012, 02:47 am
I've worked with plenty of vendors. If one of them suggested to use signature confirmation I would abandon that relationship immediately. No one that knows what they are doing does that.

I would have to disagree. Some of the vendors I work with(on a level of $1500+ packages) require express tracking or some type of verification. At least, if you want their insurance policy. These vendors being within the top 25 vendors on the SR. So I would think twice before implying they don't know what they're doing.

I am much more willing to take my risk of the package being busted(very low as it is), than taking an even greater risk of loosing a package in the mail and not getting refunded for it because I chose not to go with tracking shipping.

There is a greater chance of a non-express international package being lost versus an express international package being busted. I say this with confidence.

Few hundred dollar lawyer cost and an EASY case vs loosing $1500 in the mail system. Easy case only being if you took the proper steps to secure your identity and your doings on the SR.

The better choice seems obvious to me, at least in the situations I am in. I see much less stress in hiring a lawyer to fight off a stupid argument of someone sending me a package that could get me arrested. Versus stress in wondering if the vendor I am working with scammed me, or if my package is lost, when I can expect the package, etc.
Title: Re: Signing for packages controlled delivery DOES NOT mean you will get charged...
Post by: CaptainSensible on February 15, 2012, 02:51 am
Yeah perhaps a lawyer can get the charges dismissed or thrown out altogether, but if you have to hire a lawyer then you've already, in a sense, lost.  Lawyers cost serious money, and you could wind up in debt for years. 

The people who talk like hiring a lawyer is as simple as calling a plumber to fix a clog are seriously misinformed.  And don't think a public defender will make an extra effort to get you off the hook.

If not signing just might get you out of a court date then DON'T SIGN.  Yeah I'm sure there must be other ways LE can charge you with accepting narcotics thru the mail.  Still, be ready for any kind of shit to go down when you go to your mail pickup spot.  Signing, or admitting guilt, can not help you.
Title: Re: Signing for packages controlled delivery DOES NOT mean you will get charged...
Post by: kmfkewm on February 15, 2012, 02:54 am
Of all intercepted packs that I am aware of I would say probably about 70% of them were from international express mail. I would avoid international express at all costs personally. The vendors I work with are not forced to use escrow and usually don't do refunds even if the pack never makes it. Prior to SR the risk of interception / non-delivery was largely on the customer, particularly for bulk orders.

Not signing for a pack really probably isn't going to save you though, unless you also refuse delivery or never open the pack and return it to sender. But from what I have seen, if you sign for a pack during a CD you will be arrested about two seconds later. Also it is obviously to LE advantage for you to sign for a pack, otherwise they wouldn't (usually, but not always) try to get you to sign for it, even if signature was waived. In USA in particular almost every CD I have heard of (with a few exceptions) the agents delivering the pack got the customer to sign for it prior to arresting them, even in cases where the pack was sent without a signature being required (and the retarded customers still sign for it for some reason....).
Title: Re: Signing for packages controlled delivery DOES NOT mean you will get charged...
Post by: envious on February 15, 2012, 02:55 am
I am talking about private vendors that have been in this game for years before SR was a concept.

The general consensus is you don't sign for packs, especially international ones. It's just asking for trouble.

I am sure a lot of SR vendors insist to do what you say. That doesn't mean they know what they are talking about.
Title: Re: Signing for packages controlled delivery DOES NOT mean you will get charged...
Post by: Tommyhawk on February 15, 2012, 03:02 am
Yeah perhaps a lawyer can get the charges dismissed or thrown out altogether, but if you have to hire a lawyer then you've already, in a sense, lost.  Lawyers cost serious money, and you could wind up in debt for years. 

The people who talk like hiring a lawyer is as simple as calling a plumber to fix a clog are seriously misinformed.  And don't think a public defender will make an extra effort to get you off the hook.

If not signing just might get you out of a court date then DON'T SIGN.  Yeah I'm sure there must be other ways LE can charge you with accepting narcotics thru the mail.  Still, be ready for any kind of shit to go down when you go to your mail pickup spot.  Signing, or admitting guilt, can not help you.

Hiring a lawyer is simple as calling a plumber lol, at least it was for me

I actually had to hire a drug defense lawyer last week for a car related drug offense. Didn't cost much, didn't take much of my time, and now I'm done with it.


Debt for years? Lol? We're not talking about a serious murder case here involving hundreds of hours in court. That lawyer probably cost me what I make in a few days.
Title: Re: Signing for packages controlled delivery DOES NOT mean you will get charged...
Post by: Laughing Man on February 15, 2012, 03:12 am
Yeah perhaps a lawyer can get the charges dismissed or thrown out altogether, but if you have to hire a lawyer then you've already, in a sense, lost.  Lawyers cost serious money, and you could wind up in debt for years. 

The people who talk like hiring a lawyer is as simple as calling a plumber to fix a clog are seriously misinformed.  And don't think a public defender will make an extra effort to get you off the hook.

If not signing just might get you out of a court date then DON'T SIGN.  Yeah I'm sure there must be other ways LE can charge you with accepting narcotics thru the mail.  Still, be ready for any kind of shit to go down when you go to your mail pickup spot.  Signing, or admitting guilt, can not help you.

Hiring a lawyer is simple as calling a plumber lol, at least it was for me

I actually had to hire a drug defense lawyer last week for a car related drug offense. Didn't cost much, didn't take much of my time, and now I'm done with it.


Debt for years? Lol? We're not talking about a serious murder case here involving hundreds of hours in court. That lawyer probably cost me what I make in a few days.
You make $20k+ in a few days?
Title: Re: Signing for packages controlled delivery DOES NOT mean you will get charged...
Post by: zifnab on February 15, 2012, 03:59 am
There's another point worth mentioning. The very act of signing for the package provides them with enough probable cause to take a much closer look at you, issue more warrants, justify keeping an eye on you, ect.. Which they may not have the justification for with absolutely *nothing* linking you to a pack but the address on the envelope.

A signature is a link; its like downing a shot then running over someone with a car. You could argue the drink had nothing to do with it but....
Title: Re: Signing for packages controlled delivery DOES NOT mean you will get charged...
Post by: dothisthing on February 15, 2012, 04:27 am
Hiring a lawyer is simple as calling a plumber lol, at least it was for me
I actually had to hire a drug defense lawyer last week for a car related drug offense. Didn't cost much, didn't take much of my time, and now I'm done with it.
Debt for years? Lol? We're not talking about a serious murder case here involving hundreds of hours in court. That lawyer probably cost me what I make in a few days.

It's obvious that it's better not to sign than to sign for a controlled delivery. I hate this sort of thing but I have to say it (Godwin's law of SR: As a discussion grows longer, the probability LE name calling approaches 1). OP is giving out bad advice (to sign for a package with illegal contents), returning five times to reiterate the same point even though everyone has valid counterpoints, even though it is pretty much standard good advice not to sign. Not everyone who spreads bad advice has an agenda, but you know who has an agenda to spread bad advice...
Title: Re: Signing for packages controlled delivery DOES NOT mean you will get charged...
Post by: Magnate on February 15, 2012, 09:06 am
If you must use signed delivery, register with a mail holding service. They sign for you, and you can pay someone else to collect for you after you've received notification of its arrival.
Title: Re: Signing for packages controlled delivery DOES NOT mean you will get charged...
Post by: Tommyhawk on February 15, 2012, 12:45 pm
Hiring a lawyer is simple as calling a plumber lol, at least it was for me
I actually had to hire a drug defense lawyer last week for a car related drug offense. Didn't cost much, didn't take much of my time, and now I'm done with it.
Debt for years? Lol? We're not talking about a serious murder case here involving hundreds of hours in court. That lawyer probably cost me what I make in a few days.

It's obvious that it's better not to sign than to sign for a controlled delivery. I hate this sort of thing but I have to say it (Godwin's law of SR: As a discussion grows longer, the probability LE name calling approaches 1). OP is giving out bad advice (to sign for a package with illegal contents), returning five times to reiterate the same point even though everyone has valid counterpoints, even though it is pretty much standard good advice not to sign. Not everyone who spreads bad advice has an agenda, but you know who has an agenda to spread bad advice...

If you know it's a controlled delivery... ie cops around your house... don't sign.

Eitherway. A non controlled delivery that requires signature, the card will be dropped off at the location, and the mail man will return the next day to pick it up. A controlled delivery, they will not drop the card off. If you are wary of signing, then just wait for it to be picked up?

I live in the USA and deal with a lot of Canadian dealers who require Xpresspost for large transactions. Xpresspost doesn't require a signature in canada, but out to the US it does. Canadian bud I have found is some of the lowest price on SR. This being said, I am not the only person who takes a slightly higher risk by choosing a canadian dealer to put myself in a much highly more profitable situation. So if you're beginning to imply I am LE, then I don't know what to tell you. I made this thread for the people who are like me, who see a better option in choosing a service that might require your signature. I am by no means encouraging anyone to go out of there way and sign for a package when they usually wouldn't have to. This thread is meant to examine the nature of the risk when it comes to signing for a package, which is a lot lower than people are seeming to think. Of course it's always safer to choose an option that doesn't require you to sign, but in some cases, you don't have much of an other choice, or that other choice isn't very appealing -Paying nearly half for an ounce of weed out of country, than paying double that price inside your country.


I hope I have explained my intentions more thoroughly now that I've had some sleep and my thoughts are more collected.

If you must use signed delivery, register with a mail holding service. They sign for you, and you can pay someone else to collect for you after you've received notification of its arrival.
Please do tell more, if I knew of a service like this, it would make my life so so much easier.
Title: Re: Signing for packages controlled delivery DOES NOT mean you will get charged...
Post by: Tommyhawk on February 15, 2012, 12:55 pm
You make $20k+ in a few days?

Not sure what lawyers you're going to.

Lawyers do make a lot of money, but only a small portion of them make big bucks. A lot of lawyers barley make $50k a year. If you're a really good lawyer you MIGHT get into the 6 digits.

This being said. A lawyer for a simple drug case is not going to cost you 20k. If this were the case, most lawyers would make $500k+ a year, and obviously, that doesn't happen.

Trying to say you're a drug trafficker because you signed for a package that a mail man showed up at your door with asking for your signature, is an open and close case. Any person would sign for a package at their door and this simple fact would destroy any kind of implication that you ordered it just because you signed for it. As long as you don't have other things in your house, then it's an open and closed case.

Just like what zifnab said.... a signature is not a conviction of any kind of guilt. It is like a link, it gives them a reason to watch you. I'm not trying to persuade people to intentionally pick a service that requires signature, the reason I'm pointing all of this out is mentioned in my previous post.
I'm pointing out that the risk of getting charged when signing for a package is much lower than people think, to ease the minds of those who feel like they have no other good option(explained in my last post).
Title: Re: Signing for packages controlled delivery DOES NOT mean you will get charged...
Post by: TalkingHead on February 17, 2012, 04:07 pm
I say don't be home when the mail comes. Anyway, shouldn't you all be at work during the day? LOL!
Title: Re: Signing for packages controlled delivery DOES NOT mean you will get charged...
Post by: killerbunnies on May 04, 2012, 01:20 pm
I have had a few personal experiences with controlled deliveries over the years. I have been at a friends house when a package that originally was not supposed to have a 'signature required' was signed for. It was a controlled delivery and the feds kicked in the door 5 minutes later. He was charged with receiving the package. He denied having prior knowledge of the package and it was even sent under a fake name. The fact that he signed for it was an admission of guilt in a sense, or at least enough for them to charge him and take him to jail pending arraignment and a court date. I learned from this experience and never signed for anything after that.

A few years later I had some product shipped to a friends house under a fake name with no 'signature required'. I was planning on receiving the package so I was there alone. The normal delivery man came up to delivery the package (I recognized him). He asked me if the name printed on the package was anyone that lived there and requested I sign for it. I asked if a signature was required, to which he replied "yes". At this point I knew it was a controlled delivery and refused the package and explained that no one by that name lived there. He left and nothing happened. The next day I called the shipping company from a random phone number and asked the operator what happened to the package. They operator told me it had been seized.

Take what you want from my experiences, I took the time to detail my account for the benefit of others. :)
Title: Re: Signing for packages controlled delivery DOES NOT mean you will get charged...
Post by: BenJesuit on May 04, 2012, 03:49 pm
If you're that sweet on your drug of choice that you're willing to sign for it, you might want to re-evaluate your life. Take a step back and think about your complete loss of self control and common sense.

Or if your DOC is cheaper by ordering from a vendor the ships with signature requirement, then take the money you saved to be used as a down payment for retaining a lawyer. Though, I can't imagine it being that much cheaper to make the risk worthwhile. 
Title: Re: Signing for packages controlled delivery DOES NOT mean you will get charged...
Post by: 328502E on May 04, 2012, 05:47 pm
I have had a few personal experiences with controlled deliveries over the years. I have been at a friends house when a package that originally was not supposed to have a 'signature required' was signed for. It was a controlled delivery and the feds kicked in the door 5 minutes later. He was charged with receiving the package. He denied having prior knowledge of the package and it was even sent under a fake name. The fact that he signed for it was an admission of guilt in a sense, or at least enough for them to charge him and take him to jail pending arraignment and a court date. I learned from this experience and never signed for anything after that.

A few years later I had some product shipped to a friends house under a fake name with no 'signature required'. I was planning on receiving the package so I was there alone. The normal delivery man came up to delivery the package (I recognized him). He asked me if the name printed on the package was anyone that lived there and requested I sign for it. I asked if a signature was required, to which he replied "yes". At this point I knew it was a controlled delivery and refused the package and explained that no one by that name lived there. He left and nothing happened. The next day I called the shipping company from a random phone number and asked the operator what happened to the package. They operator told me it had been seized.

Take what you want from my experiences, I took the time to detail my account for the benefit of others. :)

What happened to your friend that signed for the package?  Did the open the package, or leave it sealed?  Did he deny any knowledge of it?  You said he was arrested, but did the charges stick / was he convicted?
Title: Re: Signing for packages controlled delivery DOES NOT mean you will get charged...
Post by: danknugsdun on May 04, 2012, 05:59 pm

On the other hand, you WILL be charged for the package if any of these things happen:
-Any trace of silk road happens to be found on your computer.

How can you be charged for accessing silk road? It's only a marketplace!
Title: Re: Signing for packages controlled delivery DOES NOT mean you will get charged...
Post by: frank-butcher24 on May 04, 2012, 07:17 pm
I've seen services come and go over the years, and one thing's pretty common here in the UK - if the customer wants the chance of a refund or resend in the case of a lost package, he opts for signed-for delivery.

The consensus around these boards is that signing for a package is foolish. I haven't come across that view in the other places I've been active. In fact I've seen others actively encourage opting for the signed-for delivery as it's more secure.

I don't know who's right because luckily I have never been put in a situation that required me to find out.
Title: Re: Signing for packages controlled delivery DOES NOT mean you will get charged...
Post by: vlad1m1r on May 04, 2012, 07:19 pm
It's good to see people are taking their safety so seriously.

Sad to say that trying to claim ignorance as to a package's contents is not an automatic defence in the UK and the burden of proof would be on the defendant to show that their possession was innocent. (Please see http://dkn255hz262ypmii.onion/index.php?topic=9543.msg189546#msg189546 where I went into the niceties of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1972 in some depth).

It Britain it is possession of drugs which is a crime, no matter how innocent said possession is - there have even been examples of people being prosecuted for forgetting to take all their prescription medication and being caught with what would be considered a controlled substance e.g amphetamines after the prescription had expired!

It's not all doom and gloom however  - a Jury can still decide that there isn't a direct causal link between taking possession of a package and its contents. Personally I think the answer is not to have contraband delivered to your home address and as previous posters have said quite rightly, make sure you encrypt your machines fully to prevent the possibility of membership of SR being used as circumstantial evidence against you in court.

God bless America! :-)

V.
Title: Re: Signing for packages controlled delivery DOES NOT mean you will get charged...
Post by: cacoethes on May 05, 2012, 05:06 pm
I believe that a controlled delivery's primary purpose is to maintain a secure chain of evidence.  How it's used from there depends entirely upon the case, and upon other evidence collected during the investigation.

You may get charged, you may not, but without the controlled delivery, the chain of evidence is not secure, and therefore the package is not really evidence (that can be used in court) at all.
Title: Re: Signing for packages controlled delivery DOES NOT mean you will get charged...
Post by: killerbunnies on May 05, 2012, 07:47 pm
My friend did not open the package but the fact that he signed for it was enough to arrest him, charge him, and take him to jail. He had to pay thousands of dollars for bond and legal representation. The charges were later dropped after he had hired an attorney. This was an incident with circumstantial evidence and in my opinion he was lucky. The point is, if you want to avoid these sorts of problems just dont sign for the package and use a fake name.
Title: Re: Signing for packages controlled delivery DOES NOT mean you will get charged...
Post by: aciddeath on May 06, 2012, 07:25 am
anyone care to comment on the idea of 'mens rea' as it applies to signing for a package?

silkroad really needs some good USA based lawyers!
Title: Re: Signing for packages controlled delivery DOES NOT mean you will get charged...
Post by: vlad1m1r on May 06, 2012, 05:00 pm
anyone care to comment on the idea of 'mens rea' as it applies to signing for a package?

silkroad really needs some good USA based lawyers!

Certainly evidence of mensus rheus or "guilty mind" would not be required in the UK - as cited in the judgment above it is sufficient to show that someone has taken possession of a package and has control over it in order to be held accountable for ownership of its contents. Of course this does imply that you accept the goods into your home or collect them from a depot - your state of mind is irrelevant though under English law, it is the possession in itself which is an offence.

This doesn't mean to say by any means that it's all doom and gloom as if you use an address besides your own and refuse to sign for packages you are going to hugely reduce your risk of being charged.

I'd be interested to hear from any law scholars in the USA to know how legislation applies over there for you.

V.
Title: Re: Signing for packages controlled delivery DOES NOT mean you will get charged...
Post by: killerbunnies on May 07, 2012, 11:19 am
I have actually been wondering how exactly things work over in the U.K.. Is it the same as the U.S. just do not sign for the package and all will be well? Or in the U.K. do they just let you pick it up from the mail box and bring it into your home before arresting you and charging you? I know that the law is different in regards to this but I am just unsure about how different it really is.
Title: Re: Signing for packages controlled delivery DOES NOT mean you will get charged...
Post by: vlad1m1r on May 07, 2012, 12:40 pm
I have actually been wondering how exactly things work over in the U.K.. Is it the same as the U.S. just do not sign for the package and all will be well? Or in the U.K. do they just let you pick it up from the mail box and bring it into your home before arresting you and charging you? I know that the law is different in regards to this but I am just unsure about how different it really is.

Hi Killerbunnies,

I have gone into this in some detail in a previous thread. (Please see:http://dkn255hz262ypmii.onion/index.php?topic=9543.msg189546#msg189546)

In short in the UK you must have both physical possession and control of an illegal substance in order to be held liable - generally speaking accepting the goods into your home is considered sufficient evidence. As possession is the crime, simply pleading ignorance as to the contents of a package is not in and of itself a defence however you cannot legally be held liable for something of which you had no knowledge.

It is generally accepted that if you accept a package into your home e.g by signing for it, you also accept the contents, although that may be for a jury to decide. As such, I suggest you use an address other than your own to receive drugs.

See also CPS guidelines on drug possession:

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/d_to_g/drug_offences/index.html#a26

The usual MO of the Police in the UK is to seize the package at the Post Office and have an officer dressed as Postal worker visit your home and ask you to sign for a package. However you should not assume in the absence of a signature it will be impossible to charge you - maybe find an address in a communal block of flats you can use?

V.
Title: Re: Signing for packages controlled delivery DOES NOT mean you will get charged...
Post by: cacoethes on May 07, 2012, 03:26 pm
Sorry to cross-post, but I'm quoting this from another thread because it's some of the best info I've read to date regarding CDs and "anticipatory warrants".  Solid fucking gold.  Many thanks to thyme for posting it:


Quote
What I am still uncertain about is this:  What happens if you calmly and rationally refuse a controlled delivery?  Is this the end of the line for them, or can they still legally swoop down and execute a warrant to search your premises?

In other words...  Is the warrant to search one's premises, in the absence of ANY OTHER EVIDENCE, predicated on the recipient actually accepting the package?
I think the term here, from what I've seen, is "anticipatory" warrant.
Not an attorney. But the standard wording on the anticipatory warrant specifies acceptance of the package. (Does not specify signing,  signing one's correct name, or accepting x more than 5 minutes.)

Here -
This is -excellent- and worth the full read, not just the excerpt below. 14 pages. Can put them all up separate if wanted. It covers no-knocks, night calls, and sealing as well, written from LE perspective.
It is for CA but the concepts, from cross checking, appear generally valid.
It's a wall of text, but I think TL;DR doesn't apply if it keeps someone out of jail/prison.

 hxxp://le.alcoda.org/publications/point_of_view/.../special_procedures.pdf

Quote
For example, it may suddenly become necessary to obtain or execute a warrant immediately, or to expedite entry into the premises, or to serve the warrant in another county or even another state. Officers may determine that the affidavit they were about to submit to a magistrate contains information that, if disclosed to the suspect or others, could cause major problems for officers or an informant.
Other twists include the need to search the office of an attorney or physician, search the customer records of phone companies and banks, obtain a warrant to search a place before the evidence has arrived, and obtain a warrant authorizing a covert search.
As we will now discuss, there are ways that search warrants can be modified to deal with all of these situations and more.
...
Anticipatory search warrants
“Anticipatory” search warrants are issued before the evidence has arrived at the place
to be searched.35 Why is this necessary? Usually because officers want to be able to conduct an immediate search when the evidence is taken inside.36 This is often considered a better option than waiting for a warrant (and taking a chance the evidence may be moved or destroyed37), or securing the premises pending issuance of the warrant.38
Anticipatory warrants are most commonly used in connection with controlled deliveries of drugs and other contraband.39 For example, officers may discover that a package being mailed or shipped to a certain address contains illegal drugs or weapons. If the package is sent on its way, officers would have probable cause to search the premises when it arrives and is taken inside.40 Consequently, an anticipatory warrant would be an option.
At first glance, there might appear to be a serious legal problem. As the courts routinely point out, search warrants may be issued only when there is probable cause to believe that evidence of a crime is now located in the place to be searched. They have, however, made an exception to this rule when it is apparent that probable cause will exist when the warrant is executed.41
The procedure for obtaining anticipatory search warrants is essentially the same as that for conventional warrants except that the affidavit must demonstrate probable cause to believe the evidence will be on the premises when the warrant is executed. To accomplish this, the affidavit must contain the following:
(1) TRIGGERING EVENT DESCRIBED: The circumstance that will result in probable cause—known as the “triggering event”—must be described with “reasonable specificity” in the affidavit and in the warrant (usually in an attachment).42
(2) TRIGGERING EVENT WILL OCCUR: The affidavit must establish probable cause to believe the triggering event will occur.43 As a practical matter, this means that officers must have the ability to make it happen, or that it will happen as a matter of course when they take certain action.
For example, in controlled-delivery cases where the triggering event is the delivery of a package containing contraband to the suspect’s house, probable cause to believe this will occur usually exists when the contraband will be delivered by an undercover officer or by an informant who is being supervised by officers. 44 Probable cause will also exist when the package will be delivered as a matter of course after officers return it to the Post Office or shipping company for delivery.45
If, however, the suspect will be picking up the package at, for example, a post office or shipping company, an anticipatory warrant to search his home or other place is permitted only if there is probable cause to believe he will be taking it there.46
For example, in U.S. v. Hendricks47 a package shipped by air from Brazil to Tucson was searched by DEA agents who found it contained seven pounds of cocaine. The package was addressed to Hendricks for pick up at the Tucson airport. The agents then learned that Hendricks lived in Tucson where he ran an import business. They were also aware that cocaine had been shipped to Hendricks’ business office about six weeks earlier.
The agents then sought an anticipatory warrant to search Hendricks’ home—the triggering event being Hendricks’ act of picking up the package at the airport and taking it home.
Although probable cause to search the house would have existed when the package was taken inside, the Ninth Circuit ruled there was no reason to believe he would be taking it there. In fact, all indications were he would be taking it to his business—and nowhere else. Said the court:
[T]he business premises were the only place that was linked to past illegal activity, the residence not at all. . . . [T]he agents had no information giving rise to a belief that the package would ever go to Hendricks’s home.48
(3) PROBABLE CAUSE TO SEARCH WILL EXIST: Finally, there must be a fair probability that when the triggering event occurs, probable cause will exist to search the place listed in the warrant.49 In other words, anticipatory warrants cannot be issued merely because the triggering event will result in probable cause to arrest the suspect or to search some location.50 Instead, the event must result in probable cause to search the place described in the warrant. [edit in footnote: 50 See U.S. v. Hendricks (9th Cir. 1984) 743 F.2d 653, 655; U.S. v. Ricciardelli (1st Cir. 1993) 998 F.2d 8, 13 [anticipatory warrant to search suspect’s home invalid because the triggering event was the delivery of contraband to the suspect’s person, not his home].]
For example, in controlled-delivery cases where the triggering event is the suspect’s act of taking the package into his home, the event will necessarily result in probable cause to search the home because, at that point, contraband will be on the premises.51
Although anticipatory warrants are used mostly in controlled delivery cases, they may be used in other types of cases in which the occurrence of some event will automatically result in probable cause to search a certain place. For example, in People v. Sousa52 narcotics officers were tipped by an untested informant that Sousa was selling large quantities of marijuana out of his home. And, according to the informant, business was so good that Sousa was actively looking for additional suppliers.
Because uncorroborated information from an untested informant will not ordinarily support a warrant, the officers figured a way to obtain corroboration. Posing as a marijuana grower, an officer arranged to meet with Sousa for the ostensible purpose of selling him ten pounds of marijuana. When the meeting was set, officers obtained an anticipatory warrant to search Sousa’s house, the contingency being Sousa’s purchase of the marijuana. As explained in the affidavit, the officers theorized that Sousa’s purchase of such a large amount of marijuana would corroborate the informant’s tip that Sousa was selling marijuana out of his home, thereby establishing probable cause to search the house. This, according to the court, made sense. As the court noted:
It is true that most anticipatory warrant cases involve controlled deliveries of packages containing contraband. None of them, however, holds that anticipatory warrants are improper in other contexts. Instead, they establish that a warrant may issue on a clear showing that the police’s right to search . . . will exist within a reasonable time in the future.
Similarly, in U.S. v. Dennis,53 Postal Inspectors intercepted a package containing cocaine addressed to Dennis’s home. The inspectors learned that Dennis’s home was actually a two-story duplex, but the address on the package did not specify whether delivery was to be made to the lower or upper unit. Consequently, the inspectors inserted language in an anticipatory warrant authorizing a search of the first floor apartment “if and only if an occupant of that apartment accepts delivery or opens the package” or the second floor apartment “if an only if an occupant of the second floor accepts delivery or opens the package.” The court ruled the warrant was lawful.
Finally, a note about the scope of an anticipatory warrant. If the sole purpose of the search is to find the evidence that is brought to the premises (e.g., cocaine in a container), the warrant must be written rather narrowly, authorizing a search for just that evidence. If, however, the warrant also demonstrates probable cause to search the premises for additional evidence, such as indicia and sales paraphernalia (assuming there is probable cause to believe the recipient is selling54), the warrant may authorize a much broader search.
Title: Re: Signing for packages controlled delivery DOES NOT mean you will get charged...
Post by: killerbunnies on May 07, 2012, 10:01 pm
Thank you Vlad1m1r that answered all of my questions. I know in the U.S. from 2 personal experiences that simply denying to sign a package that is a part of a controlled delivery or an "anticipatory warrant" is all that you need to do to keep from being arrested. The one time I had an attempted controlled delivery to me personally I found it quite humorous afterwards. The mail man was very adamant about getting me to sign for a package that had a random name on it and I KNEW did not require a signature. I called the shipping company later from a random phone number and asked what happened to the package and explained that it had not been delivered. The customer service representative then informed me that it had been seized  :o I dodged a bullet on that one.
Title: Re: Signing for packages controlled delivery DOES NOT mean you will get charged...
Post by: dave00 on May 07, 2012, 10:14 pm
Ok but is a normal thing to sign for a package very normal person do it
So if you sign the pack and then you're arrested you can say I don't know what's in the package
they open it: drugs/weapons, counterfeit. You can say it's not mine everyone can send a thing to you or
someone has tried to use my address for bad thing.
Just keep your mouth and ass well closed  ;D
remeber if you're charged for something, always a lawyer
Title: Re: Signing for packages controlled delivery DOES NOT mean you will get charged...
Post by: killerbunnies on May 07, 2012, 10:32 pm
Yes dave, that is an argument to use in court. Signing for a package containing drugs is enough for them to execute the anticipatory warrant then arrest and charge you. But wouldn't you rather just avoid having to go to jail and spend thousands if not tens of thousands of dollars on bail and legal counsel by simply not signing for a package? I hope no one makes the mistake of signing for a package after reading this.
Title: Re: Signing for packages controlled delivery DOES NOT mean you will get charged...
Post by: dave00 on May 07, 2012, 10:35 pm
yeah
it's preferable ordinary or priority mail with no signing or dead drop
Title: Re: Signing for packages controlled delivery DOES NOT mean you will get charged...
Post by: vlad1m1r on May 08, 2012, 07:12 am
Ok but is a normal thing to sign for a package very normal person do it
So if you sign the pack and then you're arrested you can say I don't know what's in the package
they open it: drugs/weapons, counterfeit. You can say it's not mine everyone can send a thing to you or
someone has tried to use my address for bad thing.
Just keep your mouth and ass well closed  ;D
remeber if you're charged for something, always a lawyer

I'm not sure if it's the same in the US but certainly in the UK, possession is the offence. Generally speaking taking possession of a package means that you also take possession of its contents. I was still a little uncertain on this so I finally got round to calling a family friend who is a Barrister (a lawyer for all my American friends) and asked for her thoughts.

Obviously due to legal privilege she couldn't be too specific but she said she had indeed had two cases where clients had received packages and later tried to claim the contents weren't theirs. Both times the packages contained drugs and both times they had been intercepted as part of a sting.

In one of the cases the client frankly admitted his guilt at trial and received a lesser, non custodial sentence (mitigation for previous good character and early guilty plea).

The second client tried to instruct her by saying that he simply didn't know what was in the package. His case wasn't helped by the fact he had a (small) quantity of cannabis in his home at the time but she told him frankly that trying to mount a defence on this basis simply wasn't credible and would be embarrassing for them both. Perhaps if he had been a 65 year old Nun he might have had more joy. Like the other client he simply remained silent at interview and pleaded guilty in court and received a more lenient sentence.

This is about as good as it gets if you a) have contraband delivered to your own home and b) choose to sign for packages. Have drugs delivered to an address to which you're not connected and sign for nothing at your own door and these problems will be very much reduced.

V.






Title: Re: Signing for packages controlled delivery DOES NOT mean you will get charged...
Post by: Dipset420 on May 10, 2012, 01:41 pm
My friend did not open the package but the fact that he signed for it was enough to arrest him, charge him, and take him to jail. He had to pay thousands of dollars for bond and legal representation. The charges were later dropped after he had hired an attorney. This was an incident with circumstantial evidence and in my opinion he was lucky. The point is, if you want to avoid these sorts of problems just dont sign for the package and use a fake name.

  I agree with most of your advise... Except you said this happened twice and both times you used a fake name to an address in which that fake name didn't live..  Have you ever though the reason you pack got flagged and searched in the first place is because of the fake name??  Use a real name and never sign its that simple.  Like you said a gram of H isn't worth the stress and about 30K in lawyer and court fees.  Fuck That!
Title: Re: Signing for packages controlled delivery DOES NOT mean you will get charged...
Post by: killerbunnies on May 10, 2012, 07:31 pm
They werent flagged because of a fake name. I still receive at the same address with a different fake name each time and havent had a single package seized since. Something unfortunate happened to the sender the first time that I do not want to discuss. The second time I am not sure, but I assume it had something to do with the fact it was poorly packaged and had a tracking number. I hate tracking numbers >:(