Post motive: I find it unacceptable that ALL of the DNM mail I've received so far could have easily been profiled, even from those renowned for their stealth.
Context: The first step for LE to seize mail is establishing probable cause for a dog sniff. Probable cause is established by profiling the piece of mail; the guidelines for profiling acceptable in court are readily available online, but here is an overview (many will be familiar): - obvious odors (masking agents actual drugs) - handwritten labels - excessively taped parcel - excessive postage - mailed from drug source state - fictitious return address/fictitious inhabitant - unknown recipient at delivery address - mailed from location outside of return address zip code - parcel weight (near a known trafficking weight: kilo, qp, etc.) - bulging parcel - individual to individual mailing (vast majority is business - business, business - individual)
Any one indicator is insufficient for probable cause, but several taken together is all LE needs to get dogs involved. My point is that all the packages I've received have fulfilled several of these indicators, needlessly I believe. The return addresses have been especially problematic. To eliminate this as a profiling factor, the return name and address should be verifiable as accurate by LEO performing a first check; it could be anything, but to eliminate return address from profiling, LE should be able to verify that the address exists and the name matches the address (same for destination address).
Conclusion: Buyers do their part by providing a real name and address; I'd like to invite vendors that don't do so already, to research profiling and prepare their packages in a way that doesn't give LE probable cause to snoop. If you need to charge more for shipping, do it, we'll pay.
If a package has a typed address/business return address that can be easily verified as true, no odor, no bulging, no excessive tape, correct postage, and a return zip code matching origin Post Office, there are no grounds for probable cause through profiling to justify a dog sniff. I'm unaware of any reason why a vendor can't carefully study the profiling criteria to ensure their packaging does not meet it and thereby greatly reduce the risk of seizure or worse.
Sources: https://ecf.moed.uscourts.gov/documents/opinions/USA_V_LOGAN-DDN-54.PDF
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Profiling+postal+packages.-a018447923
Hammertime used a Portland law firm's address for his return address; PDXBlack (?) used an Evangelical church's address on one of his packs. And when there was a problem with the delivery address, their mail rooms were surprised to discover somebody sending meth and heroin in their names. So surprised that they got police involved. Hammertime got busted, and ITGWRC the original customer in the second case got a knock-and-talk.
G-d save us from "Darknet Security" experts whose advice will only lead to more people getting busted.