The "Return to Sender" Technique

[Rick Collins]

I just posted this at the end of a (too) long thread. Actually, it deserves its own thread.

Here's an abbreviated version of a small portion of Chapter 19 of LEGAL MUSCLE ...

Q: What if I write, “Return to Sender” and put it by the door?

A: Okay, we have to talk about this. I don’t know when this started, but it was recommended in a 1998 book on steroid import methods. Now it’s become pretty standard practice for a lot of guys. I’ve heard claims that this is the magic bullet that stops law enforcement in its tracks. Write “Return to Sender” on the package as soon as you accept it and then put it by the front door like you don’t want it. When the raid team comes crashing in, you’ll have a built-in defense: “Hey, I refused the package! Get out of my house!” Your brief possession can be claimed as a simple mistake. Sounds good, especially in this uncertain age of mail bombs and anthrax letters, doesn’t it? Sometimes it can be. Without question, I have seen some cases where this technique was successful in avoiding a bust.

But depending on the specific situation, it can actually be quite damaging to your defense, a complete backfire! It depends on all the circumstances, and not all the circumstances are within your knowledge or control. Let’s flesh out a scenario. Let’s say the doorbell rings. You answer it. It’s Mr. Courier Service with a package for you. What does he say? Hmmm? He asks if you’re the person whose name is on the package, right? Of course he does, otherwise he shouldn’t give it to you. Let’s say it’s your name on the package. You respond that you are, in fact, that person. He now says, here’s your package – sign here.

You have two choices at this point, and you can’t know which is right because you can’t be sure if the delivery is legit or not. You can say, “Hey, no, wait, I wasn’t expecting anything. I don’t want it.” In which case, you will have avoided taking possession of the package (but will probably be visited shortly thereafter by two agents for a “knock and talk,” as described in Chapter 7.

Or, you can accept the package. Accepting the package is like ringing a bell. Once it’s rung, you can’t un-ring it. You’re now in possession of the package. You accepted it knowingly and voluntarily. But now in the course of five minutes you make a mad dash for your felt marker and scribble your rejection of it just in time for the knock on the door. Does that really support the inference that your acceptance of the package was some sort of accident or mistake? Or does it imply that you’re a crafty devil who’s using a deceptive tactic to thwart the investigators? How, they will ask, did you know that you didn’t want it without opening it? What new information struck you, like a bolt of lightning, in the seconds between your very willing acceptance of it at the door and your mad scrabble to disconnect yourself from it moments later? Let me let you in on a little secret: law enforcement has been aware of the “Return to Sender” ploy for quite a while. The agents might even get away with testifying at trial that writing, “Return to Sender” on a package and putting it near the door is a hallmark of drug traffickers who use the mail. There’s an argument, isn’t there, that your curious conduct suggests a guilty knowledge of the contents, don’t you think? Might not a persuasive prosecutor get a jury to think so?

 

[George Spellwin]

Great post!

 

[Rick Collins]

Thanks, George. Always good to see ya here.

 

[scout420]

Ya nice post some good info in there..

 

[pittbull7]

excellent info ty

 

[panerai]

As long as there's NOTHING ELSE in the house, it's not that bad.
I would take the package, but not open it for a while
Writting "return to sender" doesn't make much sense, that's for sure.

 

[ROID WARRIOR]

It's still bad, unless you enjoy the indignity of having law enforcement restrain you (sounds kinky), and execute a search warrant upon your premises. They might seize any cash, your computer and even your legal supplements.

RW

 

[baza]

I've never believed in that technique either.
But, what is your opinion on packages that you don't have to sign for, and are just left in your mailbox? Just curious.
I'm saying, what if someone brought the package in and wrote that? You can say you didn't want it, but you didn't want it to sit inthe mail box in case someone stole it.

 

[Citruscide]

Nice post, I think I read something about this in your book... I was kind of surprised at what I read.

C-ditty

 

[EF Sam]

Great post Rick

 

[macka]

The other technique I've heard of is giving a name but have the address set up to a place you can watch and then go scoop it up. Oh and don't use your own name

 

[bwood]

rick, it seems to me that as sloppy as the feds/locals
can be at times, that having a firepot handy might
not be a bad idea...

by firepot, i mean a small kiln type apparatus
set up with perhaps some homemade thermite
or powdered aluminum with a magnesium flare igniter...

feds knock after acceptance...what evidence???

no, thats not it at 4500 F right there i swear...

 

[ROID WARRIOR]

In such an instance, law enforcement will offer their sworn testimony that the package was delivered and was unrecoverable upon a susequent search. The will testify and may also introduce expert testimony that the device you describe was hot enough to destroy the package and its contents in short order. The defendant could quite possibly also be charged with obstruction of justice for destrying the evidence. The fact finder will then be asked to draw a reasonble inference predicated upon the testimony and circumstantial evidence.

RW

 

[Dr. JK]

Cops making the effort

This is a good post, but is over-emphasized in some ways.

1st
It costs money to have these controlled deliveries and have 2,3+ cops involved in the sting, so there has to be a good incentive for them, i.e. large qty, history of trafficking, a subject of interest , link to a bigger bust, etc.

2nd
The cops will want to make sure all their I's are dotted and T's crossed before moving in. This means they preffer to have the packag accepted AND opened when they raid the house

3rd
With the current police budgets, cops are more selective in who they go after. If they want to just make any bust, there are plenty of drug dealers around town that they can go and harrass

4th
Cops are lazy and get involved only when they have to. In this case if they received a phone call from customs, they would have to react.

5th
Cops will need to know what's in the package before getting a warrent. In that case they would have to open the package and as a result it would be delayed. Pending on how it was packaged, iot might not be easy to repack it as original.

I don't know in the US, but here in Canada we typically get a letter or phone call from customs regarding the package, wanting information or to come in and sign for it. In that case if you are not expecting anything, you simply decline to accept.

In any case as paneral said, if your house is clean, the pigs have nothing ot really nail you with. Pigs like to work backwards, if they find something they justify the search. If not, then case is usually dropped, even for a bogus package...

 

[Rick Collins]

Terms like a "large" quantity and a "clean" house can be subjective and arguable. In the States, we don't get Customs phone calls. Instead, we get bored postal inspectors looking to justify next year's budget with a controlled delivery. While there are clearly pieces of truth in some of Dr. JK's points, if the overall impression taken from it is that nobody has been arrested for accepting a package unless they open it, that's not correct.

 

[bwood]

In such an instance, law enforcement will offer their sworn testimony that the package was delivered and was unrecoverable upon a susequent search. The will testify and may also introduce expert testimony that the device you describe was hot enough to destroy the package and its contents in short order. The defendant could quite possibly also be charged with obstruction of justice for destrying the evidence. The fact finder will then be asked to draw a reasonble inference predicated upon the testimony and circumstantial evidence.

RW

i dont believe so...as state law varies, lets examine this under the model penal code...

we are dealing with the crime of possession which requires that the possessor knowingly procured or received the thing possessed, OR was aware of his control thereof for a sufficient period to have been able to terminate his possession...

unless the state's law provides some presumption as to the possessor's mens rea, i believe the hasty destruction of the package and its contents MAY be an effective defense...i can see where the court may hold that the person should have contacted the authorities...

BUT remember that each element of the offense must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt...therefore if the person's setup of an appropriate destructive device can be reasonably explained and his story is believable as to his fear and dismay upon discovering that an unknown third party was attempting to implicate him, his subsequent destruction of the contraband may serve as an effective defense...especially if he is able to keep his wits and not implicate himself by running his mouth and there is no other contraband in the residence...

also, hindering prosecution requires that a person have the PURPOSE to hinder the prosecution by destroying the evidence...the above should be a defense to that as well due to the noble purpose of terminating the possession of contraband...

my main concern is the possibility of shoddy work by the investigators even precluding an indictment...

were pictures taken of the evidence??? were samples taken and tested??? is the prosecutor really willing to roll the dice on a handfull of allegations minus any physical evidence???

i believe that if i was a dealer receiving big packages, and not wise enough to use proxies, that i would invest in my own glass marble crafting business/hobby...with the above quick ignite system...

 

[ROID WARRIOR]

I'm not sure I understand the point of all this. Initially, it was my impression that you suggested obliterating the package in an effort to claim that it never existed and that the People had no case. Otherwise, you're simply proposing what is essentially an elaborate and convoluted, albeit creative, spin on writing "return to sender" and placing the package back outside in an effort to purge the acceptance. In that case, if the package contains tablets or capsules, why not simply do what is done on every narcotic drug raid everyday of the week: make a mad dash to the garbage disposal or flush them. There is no need for a quick fire, only a quick flush.

RW

 

[Rick Collins]

Theoretically possible that a jury could have a reasonable doubt, given all of the "if's" of the 4th paragraph (and maybe a few others). [They could also buy, "Omigod, honestly, I was flushing that nasty white coke powder down the toilet even before you cops burst in!"] In practice, I'm extremely skeptical that this defense could be pulled off successfully.

 

[[email protected]]

Sorry to enlighten everyone here but if you get a controlled delivery odds are you are screwed when you sign for the package. End result is a plea bargain and you’ll be working with the enemy until the day you are sentenced.

They’ll hold sentencing day and the DA’s recommendation to the judge as leverage over your head to turn everyone you know in.

Destroy the evidence and it’s as if it’s sitting there in court anyway. If you have a clean house you are still screwed. After they seize your legal supplements they’ll try to link it all together anyway. It’s not about trial and they know it. It will never reach trial and they know this too. It’s all about numbers.

 

[Rick Collins]

Gee, thanks for enlightening us! But wasn't that acceptance issue the original point of the thread?

 

[Dr. JK]

Controlled deliveries

I have never experienced a controlled delivery, but assume it's like any other police organized sting.

The controlled delivery is a tool they use most of the time to get a warrent hoping to find more stuff on you. If they don't and the package was not opened I think the case would not hold and might be dropped. Without knowledge of the package content and no other incriminating eveidence they don't have much of a case.

Also, you have to ask yourself: there are millions of packages passed through the mail everyday, so why is yours of interest? You have to be of interest to them to even start monitoring your mail.

Then there has to be some kind of background check on you, criminal history and what you mean to them & society.

This costs money and effort, which cops don't always have.

The random sampling of packages as well as frequjesnt shipments to someone may raise concern/threat. I find it very hard to belive that even if 1 package was discovered, the cops would organize the raid. It's not worth their time and probably would not be charged, unless they find something else in your home.

I still think that the "UNAWARE OF POSSESION CONTENT AND CLEAN BACKYARD" ARE the bet defence in court, If the cops/DA can't prove you knew what's in the package, and no other evidence is found, how can they prove beyond a reasonable doubt that someone is guily of possesion?

There has to be more to the story.................

 

[ROID WARRIOR]

There are a great number of unsubstantiated generalities and outright misinformation in the above post.

"The controlled delivery is a tool they use most of the time to get a warrent hoping to find more stuff on you. If they don't and the package was not opened I think the case would not hold and might be dropped. Without knowledge of the package content and no other incriminating eveidence they don't have much of a case."

The trier of fact can be asked to reasonably infer knowledge and intent from the facts and/or circumstances.

"Also, you have to ask yourself: there are millions of packages passed through the mail everyday, so why is yours of interest? You have to be of interest to them to even start monitoring your mail."

Not true, the permutations as to why a package may elicit suspicion have been discussed ad nauseum. It's may not be so Draconian to the extent that the USPIS is "monitoring" your mail. Other factors may come into play. Take an actual case in point: In one instance postal employees discovered that a parcel from Russia had been ripped open in transit. Some tablets were falling out of the package. Postal employees then notified the regional postal inspectors.


"Then there has to be some kind of background check on you, criminal history and what you mean to them & society."

Law enforcement does just that, enforce the law. If you violate the law, you'll get busted. Don't operate under the misconception that you have to be Pablo Escobar. You need to get yourself a copy of LEGAL MUSCLE and read the chapter titled: "Your Tax Dollars At Work." When you're done, read it again.

"The random sampling of packages as well as frequjesnt shipments to someone may raise concern/threat. I find it very hard to belive that even if 1 package was discovered, the cops would organize the raid.

Believe it.

It's not worth their time and probably would not be charged, unless they find something else in your home."

Worth their time??? Uh, hello? That's what they took the job for; they want to bust law breakers! It's hard to belive that you never met a gung-ho, ball-busting, overzealous cop before.

"I still think that the "UNAWARE OF POSSESION CONTENT AND CLEAN BACKYARD" ARE the bet defence in court, If the cops/DA can't prove you knew what's in the package, and no other evidence is found, how can they prove beyond a reasonable doubt that someone is guily of possesion?"

And this is rarely the case because the vast majority of overly blowhard, macho, know-all-the-answer types find a rivulet of urine running down their leg when police begin asking questions, and they begin making incriminating statements.

RW

 

[Dr. JK]

Roid Warrior,

My post was meant only to show that there are other factors that generate/contribute a controlled delivery and that not every person or package will get raided.

If acceptance is all the cops need to bust someone, then I can go and send packages (hypothetically) to anyone I don't like and get them busted. Is that the case?

I still think that the "UNAWARE OF CONTENT KNOWLEDGE" AND KEEPING YOUR MOUTH SHUT is the best defence.

That's all

Peace
DR. JK