This is an archived post. You won't be able to vote or comment.

all 118 comments

[–][deleted] 59 points60 points  (8 children)

can you give a full story and account of what happened please OP?

  • How much did he buy
  • How did he get caught
  • Was it a CD
  • Did he say anything to incriminate himself during questioning
  • Is this in 'Murica?

[–][deleted]  (1 child)

[deleted]

    [–][deleted] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

    Thanks for answering

    [–]TheMyLegGuy 9 points10 points  (0 children)

    please answer this OP

    [–][deleted]  (1 child)

    [deleted]

      [–]bfaah 0 points1 point  (0 children)

      he also needs to protect his cousin's privacy. think, here!

      [–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

      Also wanna know to ease my mind or make me more paranoid

      [–]leoleo3000 27 points28 points  (9 children)

      What state did your cousin get arrested in?

      [–][deleted] 33 points34 points  (1 child)

      Surely OP will answer this, and allow me to loosen my butthole some.

      [–]SecondofNone 1 point2 points  (0 children)

      I hope so

      [–]im14 5 points6 points  (6 children)

      Since USPS is a federal service and using it for transport/receipt of drugs is a federal offence, does it really matter which state it happened in? IANAL but my suspicion is that it doesn't.

      More important question is, which country did this occurred in.

      [–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (4 children)

      I have to think that I'MNAL is a better acronym or even INAL..

      [–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (3 children)

      You not into anal?

      [–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (2 children)

      not willingly, no.

      [–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (1 child)

      That's a bummer

      [–][deleted] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

      Sorry bruh(?), not into getting my plumbing done by dudes.

      [–]bfaah 1 point2 points  (0 children)

      yeah but different states have different justice systems, e.g. different state bar exams

      [–]Thurgood_Jenkins_SR 21 points22 points  (12 children)

      This is very helpful, but i have one question; It isn't that somebody ordered an expensive product in your name and had no idea. It's that anybody could send anyone anything. Because, if that was the case, if I had an enemy that I wanted behind bars i'd just send a pound of weed to him in his name. I could get him to pick it up by making it from a school he attended, a job he had, a bank; it's very easy to make fake labels. A lot of people would pay $3000 or less to put someone behind bars.

      Thanks for putting this info out nonetheless.

      [–][deleted]  (11 children)

      [deleted]

        [–]SRhBuy 12 points13 points  (8 children)

        If your cousin had a good lawyer all he needs to do is bring up Reasonable Doubt in the jurors minds that he knew about the packages contents. It sounds like your cousins lawyer didn't succeed in this.

        [–][deleted]  (7 children)

        [deleted]

          [–]CircleSteveMartin 19 points20 points  (1 child)

          How do you prove ignorance of something? That seems to be logically inconsistent to me. You can't prove you don't know what's in the box. Sounds like he had a shitty lawyer with a flimsy grasp of debate. Tell him to appeal with a different lawyer.

          [–]IAmNotAPsychopath 2 points3 points  (0 children)

          logically inconsistent and how the legal system in the united states 'works' do not have to be mutually exclusive

          [–]AwkwardCow 5 points6 points  (0 children)

          How the hell do they expect him to do that? What if it was his enemy? Surely they're not going to come out and be like "Oh yeah guys I sent that to him cause I hate him. No biggie, let him off." If he doesn't know who sent it to him, how is going to find who did it? If he found who did it, how is he going to prove they did it? What the fuck?! What happened to innocent until proven guilty?! Unless this wasn't in the U.S....

          [–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (2 children)

          Whatever happened to innocent until proved guilty.

          [–]pokensmot 4 points5 points  (1 child)

          Patriot act

          [–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

          Shit, it's always the patriot act fucking up our patriotic rights.

          [–]bfaah 0 points1 point  (0 children)

          it's an affirmative defense. <<explains most of our questions right here.

          [–]im14 0 points1 point  (0 children)

          Thanks for the helpful summary!

          +alttip 1 litecoin

          (don't have any bitcoins at the moment)

          [–]tubbo 16 points17 points  (4 children)

          OP, your problem is that you conflate "burden of proof" with "defending what the prosecution has already proven". The prosecution has data on how it was obtained, where it was obtained from, who was involved in shipping, how it was bought (all they need to do is find the one $x,xxx+ charge on your bank statement or credit card to prove that shit).

          At this point, the "burden of proof" has already been established by the prosecution. They can and probably do know enough in this case to book your cousin. Every situation is different, and the laws are written in such a way that they deal with every situation in a vague and hard-to-interpret way. That is why lawyers and judges exist, they interpret the law for the given situation. Police do not do this, they err on the side of caution and will arrest you if they think you're breaking a law. But you haven't really broken the law until a court finds you guilty, because judges and lawyers are the true interpreters of the law, and it's up to them to interpret in such a way as to draw a conclusion as to what happened.

          Basically what happened here is that your cousin got into a situation where the government could prove their case rather elegantly and he can't really get off. This happens, and it's why drugs should not be illegal. The shitty part is that enough people have been jailed and released for this already, that we should have some kind of movement...

          Police don't need a warrant to have drug dogs sniff packages at the post office and a hit on a package or packages from known drug trafficking locations is enough to sustain a warrant to search your house

          This did not always used to be true. It was around the time that Bush signed laws saying that the government now had the authority to open packages without a warrant that I stopped buying illegal shit off the internet. Silk Road is a nice idea but as long as this law is in place, no one is safe. Back at that time, we had networks much like Silk Road but the trick was that nobody knew about them. There wasn't a site, the best you got were email lists that had people posting "menus" every so often. As soon as Bush announced that law was in place, though, all the lists died. No one wanted to risk being the center of what could be defined by any authority as a "drug cartel". At that time, it was considered unsafe to obtain this stuff through UPS or FedEx because they can conceivably open up your mail without a warrant, but the USPS could not. Now, I'm absolutely certain that it doesn't matter who you send through, you're just as unsafe either way.

          [–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (2 children)

          This doesn't have anything to do with Bush. There is no law that says a dog sniff is not a search. The dog sniff in the mail is an extension of the ruling in Illinois v. Caballes (2005). In that case it was ruled that a dog sniffing around your car during the course of a traffic stop did not constitute a search under the 4th amendment due to the diminished expectation of privacy of an individual in a car because they are exposing themselves to the public and because a dog sniffing does not expose intimate details. A dog sniffing your mail does not expose the intimate details of the package so it is not subject to the same level of scrutiny as an actual search. They do however need a warrant to OPEN the mail just as they would need a warrant to perform an actual search on your car. The dog hitting on your mail satisfies the probable cause requirement for a warrant; thus a warrant can be obtained and your mail opened. However, this is not set in stone. The Supreme Court recently ruled in Florida v. Jardines that a dog sniffing on private property DOES constitute a search and requires a warrant.

          [–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

          Illinois v. Caballes is so flawed

          [–]tubbo 0 points1 point  (0 children)

          This is what I was referring to on that last paragraph. His statement says that the federal government indeed has the authority to open mail sent through the USPS without a warrant, if they can figure out some sort of "emergency circumstance" (like a bunch of white powder in an envelope) to blame it with.

          I know that certain lists stopped because I talked to the people who ran the lists and asked them why they stopped. It was in direct consequence of this law and a general feeling of paranoia as other scares came to light. Buying drugs on the internet was at one time being practiced by such a scarce group of people that I think most of them got away with it simply because no one expected people to use the internet this way.

          I'm also not professing to know all about what was going on outside of a small community that is now disbanded, so there might have been other places where people obtained this information...

          [–]rondeline 2 points3 points  (0 children)

          Can you elaborate a bit more about how you know all this? This is very interesting comment.

          [–][deleted] 46 points47 points  (11 children)

          ugh i hate reading posts like this. makes me realise that im playing with fire.

          [–]aseaofgreen 2 points3 points  (0 children)

          Picking up drugs in person is just as, if not more, dangerous than using SR. You're way more likely to get caught smoking in a park than buying acid online.

          [–][deleted]  (1 child)

          [deleted]

            [–]MnAttny 50 points51 points  (14 children)

            If you are in the US, you are simply wrong, the burden of proof is NEVER on the defendant in a criminal trial. This gets a little tricky in the case of affirmative defenses, but it is true generally. The prosecution always has the burden to prove EVERY element of their case beyond a reasonable doubt. The jury not needing a unanimous vote is correct in the cases of some jurisdictions and some felonies.

            (Source: Current civil attorney and previous public defender here).

            [–]srthrowawy 4 points5 points  (7 children)

            From an attorney's perspective then, if you are the target of a cd, what can one do to indemnify himself?

            [–]MnAttny 9 points10 points  (6 children)

            First of all, I don't think indemnify means what you think it does :). I think the advice that is put forth on this sub is generally correct. Do not sign for the package, do not invite the police into your home without a warrant, do not talk to the police (ask for a lawyer). The deny deny deny line of thought is somewhat flawed as this can merely be a means of impeaching your credibility later on. The best course of action is to say nothing at all and request a public defender, or if you have the means, your own attorney.

            [–]srthrowawy 4 points5 points  (2 children)

            Thanks!

            I've never had to use the word indemnify when referring to a criminal prosecution. Is this wrong? It seems to me it would still hold true. You can certainly indemnify yourself from lawsuits. For example when the small print says something like, 'I agree to hold harmless and indemnify the Released Persons for all costs associated with injury to ect, ect....

            in·dem·ni·fy transitive verb \in-ˈdem-nə-ˌfī\ in·dem·ni·fiedin·dem·ni·fy·ing

            Definition of INDEMNIFY

            1 : to secure against hurt, loss, or damage 2 : to make compensation to for incurred hurt, loss, or damage

            [–]MnAttny 2 points3 points  (0 children)

            Makes sense from the definition. It is not used in my experience in the criminal context.

            [–]alteredditaccount 2 points3 points  (0 children)

            It's just that indemnity is something that one party does to (for) another party (typically via contract), not to himself.

            [–]smokegetsinureyes 1 point2 points  (0 children)

            Say nothing. Verbally invoke your 5th Amendment rights. And then wait for your lawyer to get to the jailhouse and talk it over with him. Don't deny shit. Simple say I am invoking my 5th Amendment rights, and have nothing more to say on the matter.

            [–]Calittres 0 points1 point  (0 children)

            Question for you. If you don't sign for any packages and instead just wait, look at it and write return to sender on it you can't possibly be held accountable for the contents right? I mean say you do that and then in the middle of the night someone comes and grabs it off of your porch or something.

            [–]oh_that_guy_again 1 point2 points  (0 children)

            Would you mind addressing this statement from the OP:

            "drug dogs sniff packages at the post office and a hit on a package or packages from known drug trafficking locations is enough to sustain a warrant to search your house."

            Seems to me that a drug dog hit on a package in your name, but not yet in your possession wouldn't justify probable cause. Based on your knowledge, what do you think?

            [–]srtossin 7 points8 points  (4 children)

            Did the package come through the silk road?

            [–][deleted]  (3 children)

            [deleted]

              [–][deleted]  (2 children)

              [deleted]

                [–]MDUK_2 6 points7 points  (0 children)

                That's not naive at all - any stealth worth a damn and your UK packages are basically secure.

                [–]reaperx2 6 points7 points  (0 children)

                This sounds kind of like a scare tactic or a prank.

                Anyway, if this is true then depending on the state he probably will not get 3-5 years because the jail/prison system is becoming way to crowded and its way to expensive to incarcerate all these people especially at the state/local level. As a result some states are releasing LOTS of convicts early (my state is even releasing violent offenders early). This is exactly why drugs should be legal; its stupid as hell to waste money sending people to jail for drugs.

                [–][deleted] 12 points13 points  (1 child)

                A lot of the above sounds dubious...

                [–]SlowDown 12 points13 points  (3 children)

                WHERE did this happen? Come on, OP, this is the most important piece of information, and you have omitted it.

                [–]smokegetsinureyes 2 points3 points  (1 child)

                "That’s because Oregon is one of only two states that does not require juries to reach unanimous verdicts in criminal cases. Like Louisiana, it allows convictions by a vote of 10 to 2." The New York Times

                [–]IDontBreak4Hippies 0 points1 point  (0 children)

                Wow. Now I know. That's pretty fucked.

                [–][deleted]  (3 children)

                [deleted]

                  [–][deleted] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

                  Yeah at this point I think the post is just bullshit. The OP has responded with other details, but location is the SINGLE MOST IMPORTANT detail when talking about legal issues. California and Texas have different drug laws than New Zealand or London.

                  The vast majority of US states require a unanimous verdict for guilt in any criminal trial, I only know of two states where some crimes can be ruled by a supermajority.

                  [–][deleted]  (1 child)

                  [deleted]

                    [–]IGetDankShitHEATFan 6 points7 points  (0 children)

                    My only advice for this entire post is that your friend should have gotten a better lawyer. Either that or your post is bullshit.

                    [–]eco929 1 point2 points  (4 children)

                    isn't this thing dead in the water if you just REFUSE the package?

                    [–]RacistConspiracy 1 point2 points  (0 children)

                    Yep.

                    [–][deleted]  (2 children)

                    [deleted]

                      [–]smokegetsinureyes 1 point2 points  (0 children)

                      And I ain't signing for shit.

                      [–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

                      Only two states in the US allow a guilty verdict without a unanimous vote and those are Louisiana and Oregon. EVERYWHERE else in the US requires a unanimous vote for a criminal trial. As far as not signing for packages it's up to the prosecution to prove to the jury that the package was for you. The fact of the matter is that if it was sent to you in your name that's enough to demonstrate that the package was yours. You have to introduce some doubt that it wasn't yours and that is difficult. Additionally if you have large amounts of cash that you can't demonstrate are yours then you have a problem.

                      [–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

                      OP is suspiciously quiet on any details about this one....

                      [–]RacistConspiracy 5 points6 points  (5 children)

                      The prosecution does not have to prove you knew drugs were in your package. They just have to prove you knew you were in possession of the package and the packaged contained controlled substances. The burden of proof is on you to prove that you did not know the controlled substance in it. Nobody is going to believe that somebody ordered an expensive product in your name and you had no idea. Not signing for the package did not help at all.

                      It's not enough to not sign. You have to refuse the package.

                      People still get arrested for possession. The police aren't only going after dealers, although that's who they prefer and who they want you to help them capture.

                      They're going after people with quantities consistent with distribution. That doesn't necessarily mean they'll prosecute for it or that they'll be able to prove it.

                      This blew my mind. The jury verdict does not have to be unanimous. A majority vote can convict you.

                      The vast majority of states require a unanimous vote. A few only require a supermajority.

                      [–]Borax 3 points4 points  (0 children)

                      I presume he meant that the pack was just put through his letterbox.

                      [–]TrippleZERO 0 points1 point  (3 children)

                      Also, what if you open the package and take out the drugs and dispose of packaging and hide the drugs. Would the lack of evidence be a thrown out case?

                      [–]RacistConspiracy 0 points1 point  (2 children)

                      You're not getting enough time to dispose of the drugs and the package. If it's a CD, you must not accept the package.

                      [–]TrippleZERO 0 points1 point  (1 child)

                      I understand that.. I was under the impression it was in his mailbox though. A lot of discrepancies with this story.

                      [–]RacistConspiracy 0 points1 point  (0 children)

                      Generally, CDs don't involve leaving something in the mailbox. That wouldn't make any sense logistically.

                      [–]El_Chupocabra 5 points6 points  (0 children)

                      Could you give us a more complete back story for this?

                      Did he get 3-5 just for possession or for sending it through the mail?

                      Who was in charge of prosecution: state, county, or federal?

                      [–]Ajpimpcycle 2 points3 points  (3 children)

                      It also depends on what you buy, some things are a lot easier to detect ex:weed due to its smell and odd size( even if in stealth packaging) compared to say fentanyl, which is just a sentless paper thin piece of plastic. Be careful what you order guys, if you can buy it locally do it instead. Dont risk it!

                      [–]AwkwardCow -2 points-1 points  (2 children)

                      Buying it locally is as risky. Whoever deals it to you can be an undercover. They can steal from you. They can threaten you. They can do a lot of things to you. With SR, at least you can get off with a stern warning by simply denying the package.

                      [–]77565Buying/Selling drugs doesn't need to make you a bad person 1 point2 points  (0 children)

                      I think he meant locally as in domestically on SR?

                      [–]mysketchythrowaway 0 points1 point  (0 children)

                      Not sure why you are getting the down votes. I always been curious about the risk percentage between buying from local dealers vs buying off silkroad. It would not shock me that the amount of risk is way higher when dealing with people in person than SR.

                      [–]unknown734 2 points3 points  (1 child)

                      In the US the burden of proof is on the prosecution but reality is that a jury may assume the defendant ordered the package unless the defense does something to raise reasonable doubt.

                      The system in the US is broken but as far as I can tell everyone in the system is just going along with it. Lawyers from both sides look down on the rest of us when we protest the system is working the way it should.

                      It is all fine and dandy when people on the Internet are telling you that you'll be fine but that doesn't mean much when you're in jail or waiting for a trial with a public defender telling you there isn't anything he can do except maybe work out a plea even if there's zero evidence showing you ordered that package except for the package itself.

                      [–]TrippleZERO -1 points0 points  (0 children)

                      They call them public pretenders for a reason. Their goal is to get you out of the system so they try to get you to take deals. You really just have to know better yourself. Don't be stupid.

                      [–]reaperx2 2 points3 points  (0 children)

                      If this was true it would open the door for abuse wide open. I'm sure there are many people who would be willing to spend $500-1000 ( possibly less ) in order to fuck someone they don't like.

                      Hell, all you would have to do is put a few grams of strong smelling weed in box ( put a bag around it to make not look like a setup ) and include a gram of heroin/cocaine/MDMA or another schedule I substance and in MOST states they would be facing a felony because most states personal possession (with the exception of weed ) is a felony.

                      Now, this would FUCK someone's life up badly. Not so much the prospect of going to jail ( unlikely ), but having a felony on your record. This hurts future job, education, and housing opportunities. In other words, its a major pain in the ass.

                      [–]AwkwardCow 4 points5 points  (9 children)

                      Wow. That's fucked up. Hope your brother gets out okay through all this and gets the minimum sentence. Thanks for sharing this with us! If I may ask, what did he order and how much?

                      [–][deleted]  (8 children)

                      [deleted]

                        [–]MDUK_2 11 points12 points  (2 children)

                        3-5 years? For that?

                        Hot damn I'm glad I don't live in "the land of the free"

                        [–]ruckFIAA 6 points7 points  (0 children)

                        If you're not free, we'll eventually come and free you! It's in your best interests!

                        [–]Seishuu5HydroxyTryptamine -1 points0 points  (0 children)

                        Nothing like American hypocrisy.

                        [–]BlurstAnswerPossible 12 points13 points  (0 children)

                        Personal amounts as defined by the law, or as defined by him?

                        [–]vortex30 2 points3 points  (0 children)

                        Damn! I got charged with possession of a schedule 4-1 substance (Ketamine, same schedule that heroin is in though, which surprised me when I found out, maximum sentence = 7 years) and had ~3.5g which would be in the intent to distribute range but without a scale and all of it being contained in one bag they reduced it to possession. It is my first offence, college student, come from a good family/neighbourhood, clear history of addiction (been on methadone, had ODs [in fact the Ketamine was discovered as a result of an OD], been to treatment once before). The case isn't fully resolved yet but I'm absolutely NOT looking at a custody sentencing (prison time) and my case may be fully withdrawn if I complete 28 days of rehab, or I may get a peace bond which means probation for a year, manage to stay out of trouble and the criminal record disappears. I'm hoping for one of these results as I'd really like to get clean and join the forces. Worst case scenario is a suspended sentence where I am on probation for whatever my sentencing is for, and if I fuck that up then I am placed into custody, and whether I mess up or not I'll always have a criminal record.

                        This is in Canada.

                        [–]Heredia138 -3 points-2 points  (2 children)

                        You said expensive.

                        [–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (1 child)

                        Personal can get expensive.

                        [–]Heredia138 5 points6 points  (0 children)

                        Don't defend this guy. It sounds like he's lying and just trying to scare you all.

                        [–]srthrowawy 1 point2 points  (2 children)

                        So let's say your cousin decided to use a random fake name on the package. Could it be argued that the package was sent to the wrong address?

                        [–]reaperx2 0 points1 point  (0 children)

                        I think that would make it more suspicious; like your trying to pull a fast one.

                        [–]AwkwardCow 0 points1 point  (0 children)

                        Don't use a fake name unless you do not get a refund/reship when your package never arrives.

                        [–]ENRICOs 1 point2 points  (0 children)

                        If this took place in the USA there are two warrants involved, a federal one from the post office and a local one from the state or county the package is destined for.

                        Signing for a package under a controlled delivery opens you up to a prosecution from either or both authorities, depending upon what was in the package and how hard they want to lean on you. Once you sign you're considered to be in possession of whatever is in the package.

                        Never believe any arresting authority when they tell you that informing on other people will result in a lighter sentence for you. Your ultimate sentence is up to the judge and no one else. The police can say you cooperated, however, the judge does not have to take that into account when he sentences you.

                        The bottom line is to tell the person posing as a postman that you weren't expecting any package, and don't know the name or address of the person who sent it to you, refuse to accept it, ask that it be returned to sender.

                        You're correct that police don't need a warrant to have a drug dog sniff and alert on a package that's inside a postal or delivery facility, however, they need a federal warrant to open the package, and a warrant from the local authorities in the state or county the package is going to be delivered in. They still need a warrant to search your house, and by signing for the package you just gave them the right to enforce it.

                        Police can and will seize any cash, real drug related paraphernalia or even common household items that they think can be used in the processing or packaging of drugs.

                        Don't ever sign for a package that you personally know to contain illicit substances... it's all downhill from there.

                        [–]harrisun 1 point2 points  (0 children)

                        I'm skeptical, this sounds like scare-tactic BS

                        • So in other words, if I really want to fuck someone over all I have to do is have drugs sent to their house and then anonymously tip off the police? This whole thing contradicts everything I've learned about due process

                        • Also - how in god's name could a buyer help police catch SR dealers? The only information they could possibly have is an anonymous screename from an encrypted website

                        Also I have to ask: was the order shipped domestically or internationally? Because the latter would probably have less constitutional protections in our modern "everybody is a terrorist" society

                        [–]EverGreenPLO 1 point2 points  (10 children)

                        What are you talking about the burden of proof is on the defendant?

                        That's wrong. You couldn't be more wrong. The prosecutor has to prove their charges not the other way around

                        [–]zuesk134 0 points1 point  (1 child)

                        in affirmative defense cases the burden is on the defense to prove what they said happened

                        [–]smokegetsinureyes 0 points1 point  (0 children)

                        It's because you are admitting the package actually came to your house and you received it, but you are arguing other points which could exonerate you. In other words: "An affirmative defense is a complete or partial defense that affirms the complaint or charges but raises facts other than those alleged by the plaintiff or prosecutor which, if proven by the defendant, would defeat or reduce a claim even if the allegations alleged are all proven."

                        [–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

                        and what if something is already considered as proven enough? Then its your job to explain them why it isnt. At least this sounds logical to me :/

                        [–]AwkwardCow -2 points-1 points  (1 child)

                        Might not be in the US. AFAIK innocent until proven guilty applies across all states in the US.

                        [–]EverGreenPLO 0 points1 point  (0 children)

                        That was one of my questions

                        Because as NARC as the US this stuff sounds crazy lol

                        [–]mysketchythrowaway 1 point2 points  (0 children)

                        ...fuck

                        [–]Kruniac 1 point2 points  (0 children)

                        1: Incorrect. You are LITERALLY telling us that I can purchase 27 grams of cocaine, have it shipped to YOUR house, and because you have no way whatsoever of proving that you DIDN'T order it, you would get convicted. This simply isn't accurate at all. You would otherwise hear of people having this happen somewhat regularly, which you do not.

                        2: Yep. This is expected regardless of the charges against you. In fact, even for a simple possession charge, the police will compel a person to implicate dealers/users/etc. It's their job to do that - to keep pulling at threads until they unravel something. "Bringing in 5 people" is voodoo - there is no number that any agency legally abides to. If the DA decides that you've been cooperative, (and/or with a recommendation from the detective(s) handling your case), you may get a sentencing recommendation and/or plea agreement. Ultimately it's up to the judge.

                        3: You're absolutely correct. People get arrested for possession every day. You will get arrested for possession and/or possession with intent to distribute a controlled substance if you're caught.

                        4: I know nothing about this, but I would believe it. The PC alone from a drug mutt going nuts over your mail would be grounds for a warrant, hands down.

                        5: This is somewhat true. If you have cash laying around, it will most likely be confiscated. If you've been selling drugs (or making any illegal income) and are stupid enough to have unsecured currency laying around, I don't know what to tell you.

                        6: You're wrong. This is leading me to believe that you're lying, that there is no "cousin" with a "trial", etc.

                        In Oregon or Louisiana, a majority decision may be sought in non-capital offenses. If your "cousin" is not being charged in those states, then you're just wrong. The ONLY way your "cousin" is getting hit with a majority decision is if he is in civil court. Unlikely considering we're supposedly talking about a drug trial/conviction.

                        [–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

                        Do you think this would have happened if he sent it to a fake name?

                        [–]hugaddictionincognito 0 points1 point  (0 children)

                        ...and as evidence the prosecuting attorney used his post log from r/silkroad to prove he was playing buying illicit substances.

                        [–]DBlookout 0 points1 point  (2 children)

                        There are some inaccuracies here. The burden is on the prosecution to show that the defendant was aware what he had was a controlled substance. They can do this by many different ways - defendant admits to it post Miranda; Internet searches; way it's packaged; lots of cash; also paraphernalia; etc.

                        There is case law for this - see state v fiske in FL. Possession of psychedelic mushrooms must be proven that the subject knew he possessed psilocyin or psilocybin mushrooms. Mere possession and stating you we're going to put them on your spaghetti that night will get you off. As long as u don't admit post Miranda or have Internet searches or other drug para. It will be an extremely tough sell.

                        This also is a big sticking point for all the new synthetic drugs like spice/k2. A store owner selling the stuff who has a lab letter showing that it doesn't contain illegal substances (whether the letter is accurate or not!) will generally have a very difficult time being found guilty without additional incriminating evidence.

                        [–]Kruniac 1 point2 points  (0 children)

                        OP is either lying, trolling, naysaying SR, all of the above, or isn't telling us/hasn't gotten the whole story.

                        If there is a "cousin", I'll bet it's the latter. He simply isn't in the hot seat, and is only getting second hand information about his 'cousin's trial.

                        [–]unknown734 0 points1 point  (0 children)

                        What about pre-Miranda before they've determined they are going to make an arrest?

                        What about when the police lie and claim you said you knew what was in the package?

                        [–]smokegetsinureyes 0 points1 point  (1 child)

                        "That’s because Oregon is one of only two states that does not require juries to reach unanimous verdicts in criminal cases. Like Louisiana, it allows convictions by a vote of 10 to 2." The New York Times

                        [–]smokegetsinureyes 0 points1 point  (0 children)

                        So it was either in Oregon or Louisiana.

                        [–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

                        this user name was made 2 days ago, the day he first posted the link..and he hasn't posted anything anywhere else..i'm quite skeptical

                        [–][deleted]  (1 child)

                        [deleted]

                          [–]Kruniac 0 points1 point  (0 children)

                          I agree with this. OP giving some vague story, some bulletpoint facts that aren't proven, and wrapping the whole thing up in a neat "You'll go to jail if you order drugs from SR" package is sketchy as hell.

                          Either a troll, or a disgruntled mom whose kid is ordering marijuana pills from that thar interwebs. :)

                          reddit gold

                          In Summation

                          Want to say thanks to %(recipient)s for this comment? Give them a month of reddit gold.

                          By purchasing Reddit Gold, you agree to the Reddit User Agreement.

                          • make my gift anonymous
                          • include a message

                          Please select a payment method.

                          Give gold often? Consider buying creddits to use, they're 40% cheaper if purchased in a set of 12.

                          Would you like to learn more about giving gold?