I don't see what's absurd about that - establishing probable cause and then doing a search with a warrant is exactly how things are supposed to work. I think it only seems weird to you because you were the least knowledgeable person about what was going on - the Feds knew there was a stolen goods ring in operation, the thieves knew you were a potential dupe who just wanted an easy buck, whereas you were young and inexperienced enough not to find anything odd about someone asking for your help in selling (what was then) a very high-tech item with a price to match.
But they're not. Acceptance of packages not addressed to you but to someone you've never heard of would have been the action establishing probable cause. 'Lead us not into temptation but deliver us from evil' is a standard for God, not the police. I am OK with law enforcement employing bait that is intended to be active to criminals; what they're not allowed to do is induce people to commit criminal acts who were not otherwise inclined to do so.
There's nothing wrong with accepting packages not addressed to you, especially from FedEx, what you're thinking of is 'opening someone's USPS mail' which most definitely is illegal.
If it was illegal to sign for a package addressed to someone else how come FedEx will let just about anyone sign for a package, even when you say they aren't home.
So in essence, you're saying it's ok for police to use evidence of doing nothing wrong as evidence of a crime?
There's a big difference between signing for someone who's not home and signing for someone that you know for a fact not to live there. It's not a criminal offense, but the standard for probable cause is one of suspicion rather than proof of criminality.
Well, to be precise, "reasonable suspicion" is a weaker standard than the "probable cause" required for a warrant. In either case, there needs to be suspicion of something specific, not just "this seems shady".
That said, you are certainly correct that "probable cause" is less than proof, and knowing nothing about the case it seems plausible that "this guy is accepting packages for people he doesn't know" firmed up some link in their reasoning and made the difference between lacking and having probable cause.
I don't think they were detained. That has a specific meaning of not being free to leave, where it seems here as if the police merely asked questions. The police don't need permission to ask you anything, although you're not obliged to answer either. However, we'll never know exactly how this went down legally speaking, since the top poster avers that he had his headphones on for the first several minutes of the interview.
In the specific example of a traffic stop, I believe you are considered to have been detained. You are correct that merely asking someone questions isn't the same.
I didn't know it was illegal to lie about who you are. There's lots of exceptions like "impersonating a police officer" and "identity theft", but I'm pretty sure it's not illegal for me to lie about who I am to a girl at a party to further my goals.
Also, the "Federal" part might be spooking you. How about police officers? Do you object to undercover officers?
> but I'm pretty sure it's not illegal for me to lie about who I am to a girl at a party to further my goals.
Right. I was talking mostly about lying to the authorities. Why can they lie to us, but we can't lie to them?
> How about police officers? Do you object to undercover officers?
That's a good question - I don't understand how it works well enough. If my spouse is having a heart attack and I call 911, can an undercover cop pretending to be a paramedic come into my house and then can a search warrant then be granted based on what he saw in my house, even though I thought he was a paramedic not a cop?
> Why can they lie to us, but we can't lie to them?
While giving false statements (any statements!) to federal officers is illegal, it's not illegal otherwise. If you're arrested for selling drugs, claim you're not selling drugs, and then are convicted - the claim that you're not selling drugs is not a crime. You can't lie in court, but the authorities nominally can't either.
I think the fact that lying to a federal officer is a crime is absurd. However, only a small percentage of the population comes in contact with federal agents so the impact is lower.
>can an undercover cop pretending to be a paramedic come into my house
I think most states have laws making it a crime to impersonate an emergency responder, and generally courts won't admit evidence that is obtained illegally (fruit of a poisoned tree and all that). However, the fact that the person is a cop makes no difference. It's the same as if anyone showed up at your door claiming to be a paramedic.
>Why can they lie to us, but we can't lie to them?
Same reason they can arrest you and you can't arrest them.
One of the jobs of the police is to investigate crimes. Deceit, when used properly, is one tool in the toolbox for good and effective police/detective work. I mean the typical "good cop, bad cop" interrogation technique can be considered deceitful.
They must use deceit (and other tactics) within the confines of due process of law to protect the accused as well as the public at large. Courts use the term "shocks the conscience" for the type of deceit that, well, shocks the conscience, and that type of deceit isn't allowed. There isn't an exact line drawn in the sand over when legitimate police work turns into "shocks the conscience" behavior because it can be somewhat subjective at times. However, a clear example would be a police officer pretending to be the suspect's court appointed attorney in order to gain evidence. See also: Rochin v. California[1]
If police posed as paramedics in order to enter your house, that definitely would pass the "shock the conscience test" thus violate due process of law. Doubly so if they somehow purposely injured you or your spouse to get you to call.
Furthermore, police don't need to obtain a search warrant if they have probable cause. The plain view doctrine[2] would likely apply as long as the officer was lawfully in your home (you invited her in for tea) and all your murder weapons covered in blood were laid out on the coffee table. I'm being hyperbolic, but you get the point. The officer also doesn't need a warrant if you consent to a search. Your consent can be taken away at any time though.
And here[3] are two recent cases out of New York (these are state court, not federal, but I still think they are good examples of the concept)
>In a unanimous ruling, the New York State Court of Appeals tossed out the 2009 conviction of Adrian Thomas for the murder of his infant son, finding that Troy, N.Y., police had overstepped their prerogative to use artifice when they told Mr. Thomas that his son, who was brain-dead, was alive and could be saved with his confession, among numerous other falsehoods.
>In another decision on Thursday, the court also upheld a lower court’s ruling to overturn the conviction of Paul Aveni for criminally negligent homicide in his girlfriend’s heroin overdose death. The court agreed with the earlier ruling that police had coerced Mr. Aveni into confessing, telling him that his girlfriend was still alive, but could die if he did not tell them what drugs he had given her, so that she could receive proper treatment.
It is all a delicate balancing act to try to keep the system fair to everyone.
And FYI, I am under no illusion that there are no corrupt police, things always are perfect, etc., etc. I just am trying to give an overview of the concepts, the implementation is not perfect.
If you don't know you're talking to an FBI agent then there's no legal culpability. The poster above you is wrong; it's a felony to knowingly and willfully make false statements to an investigator. So if you don't know who you're talking to you have no obligation to be truthful, likewise it's no crime to make a non-factual statement through simple error rather than to deceive. For example if you tell an FBI agent that your spouse is at work but unknown to you your spouse has left the workplace and gone shopping, that's not your problem.
>You don't see any problem with Federal agents lying about who they are to further their own goals?
Not really. Undercover and sting operations are older than the sun. I'm not sure how police would effectively solve crimes without that tool in the toolbox.
