from drinking Drano and flushing the dog down the toilet. There's nothing like a kid around to harsh one's mellow.

That's when most of my stoner friends gave it up, when they had a toddler around.

I'm unencumbered at present, so it would have been Alice Toklas brownie time for me.

Is that one group of people you don't want to piss off are drug dealers.

money in seven pounds of marijuana, then send it in a package using FedEx to someone they don't know?

For some silly reason, I don't think we're getting the whole complete story here.

for all the parents coming to the party

The less time a dealer is in contact with a drug shipment the less time they can get caught red-handed...
clearly a drug dealer doesn't want their own address on a shipping manifest for a package of illegal substance...

So a home that is empty during the day is identified.

Drugs are sent there by a private service. The delivery is left outdoors on a porch.

The drugs are recovered by a person who swoops in and picks up the package.

Usually the home owner hasn't a clue this activity ever took place...unless something goes wrong.

Obtain the IP of the person (or persons), who was following the tracking info online.
Should be a simple matter to sort things out (unless they were clever enough to log in via free
or public Wi-Fi).

and then tell the guy if he really wants it he could come down and pick it up in person. They certainly wouldn't have had to tell him over the phone his package had been opened or by whom.

That was probably just part of the plan hatched between the shipper and the men waiting for it to be delivered to the alternate address.

None of this would be necessary if cannabis was legal, as it should be.

She said it was delivered to the wrong address, but I'll bet the address on the box is her actual address. And was her name on the shipping label? Probably not. In which case, FedEx did nothing wrong even if someone called and asked where their package was; FedEx would just be confirming a delivery address on their paperwork.

so this woman opens a package that presumably is not addressed to her or her daughter and then SHE is the one who complains about an invasion of privacy? she has fucked up morals.

It probably WAS addressed to her if the scam described upthread is what was followed. If it wasn't addressed to her, she probably just didn't bother to check the name and address and make sure it was correct.

Dumbass.

Just throw it away....

The drug dealers already showed up at her door wanting the package. They know who she is and where she lives. I suppose you could argue that the safest (though not necessarily most ethical) course of action would have been to give them the package, but even if she had no qualms about being an accomplice to drug smugglers, she probably freaked out when they came to the door, as would I. I would be too afraid NOT to call the police if I were in her position.

As well as her address....

I would have given back the open package and then called the police to file a report after they had left. I would be worried too if I were her. It's one thing to give back an unopened box, but I'd be worried if I had opened it because they might be concerned about what I knew, not to mention the general anxiety that would come with knowing a shady criminal knew where I lived and could possibly return to rape/attack me.

I think the sender of the package went to a FedEx store with a package addressed to something like 123 Main Street. The package information was entered into a computer system and a mistake was made; the employee who entered the data thought the "1" was a "7," for example. So the package gets delivered to 723 Main Street, the recipient opens it without noticing that the address is correct but the name is wrong (or maybe it just says "resident" or something). Meanwhile, no package shows up at 123 Main Street and the sender or recipient goes to FedEx and asks where the package was sent. At that point the FedEx employee probably should have said, "Tell me what address you wanted it sent to and I'll tell you if that's where we sent it." Instead, the employee says, "723 Main Street," and the intended recipient goes there to retrieve the package. Alternatively, the sender may have simply entered a tracking number online and brought up the address that was entered into the system. That seems pretty standard, and if the legal argument is that this practice is dangerous and should change... I don't know, that's a tough one. (And would going online to check a tracking number be part of the MO of smugglers wanting to leave no paper trail? I really don't know.)

This is all speculation of course, but I doubt this would have gotten as far as a lawsuit if the facts were simply that the sender used this woman's address on purpose and therefore had it all along.