USA - Has anyone ever been raided for ordering an RC?

[Jacco]

Hey,

SWIM knows that most of the time when the DEA intercepts a package (let's say 2C-T-2), they just take out the goods and replace it with a "love letter." But has the DEA ever decided to raid a house for an (unscheduled) house, or have they ever done anything more drastic than a harmless letter? SWIM wonders when they're going to start actually busting the doors down, if they haven't already. (This is a question about the US, as the prefix says).

[trptamene]

hmm...I think that most the time FDA intercepts packages for "new drug without a new drug license" and this is done such that a ll (just a letter) is recieved instead of the package w/ no goods and a "surprise".

I believe if the DEA intercepts it is domestic (either in origin or after an international package crosses customs). If this is the case I believe they try to do a controlled delivery for illegal drugs, but in the case of quasi-legal RC's of 1g in amt I am not sure they would do anything or what they would do instead.

http://www.encyclopedia.com/printabl...d=1G1:18447923

Reputation Comments on this post:

thanks for the link

[Jacco]

Excellent link, trptamene. Good work.

In the formative stages of Omaha's program, postal inspectors and police investigators met with prosecutors to determine a strategy for handling cases brought by the joint team. They concurred that when a package containing drugs was identified, investigators would remove most of the drugs, leaving just a small amount to be resealed in the package and delivered later. Prosecutors agreed that they could argue successfully in court that the defendant found in possession of the resealed package actually had "constructive possession" of the original amount of contraband. However, to preserve the elements of the State or Federal drugs violation, it would be best if at least some of the drugs originally seized were delivered in the package.

This seems to indicate that the package has to actually be held or accepted by the subject to constitute possession. So, SWIM reiterates, refuse to accept packages when there is ANY suspicion that it may be a controlled presentation.

That said, would anyone else share their experiences? SWIM would be interested to know the actual case law/instances of this happening.