Noel Fletcher
Arkansas and Tennessee lawmakers are enacting tougher sanctions against cargo thieves, while other states are eyeing bills that would establish task forces to harness resources to combat this burgeoning criminal activity.
Truckers in states throughout the nation are having freight stolen at a rate amounting to $18 million each day, according to the American Transportation Research Institute.
A May 14 report by Overhaul for the first quarter of this year put the daily rate of cargo theft at nearly seven per day.
Thefts of auto and parts loads rose most sharply, the report found, climbing 142% from Q4 2025 and 51% from a year earlier. Electronics remained the most common target, representing 17% of incidents, followed by food and drinks at 15%, with auto and parts and clothing and shoes at 11% each.
The report cited an increase in deceptive pickups in which cargo is stolen by criminals using fake identities, forged credentials and carrier impersonation to steal legitimate loads.
“The growth in deceptive pickup schemes tells us that organized networks are investing in fraud infrastructure, and when criminals are forging identities and impersonating carriers, a padlock on a trailer isn’t going to stop them. That’s a threat you have to monitor, verify and catch in real time,” said Barry Conlon, CEO and founder of Overhaul.
Thieves are focusing on California, with its key ports and intermodal hubs. Much of the nation’s stolen freight is linked to organized crime rings using sophisticated methods.
Some goods being shipped from California to other parts of the country are being stolen as the freight moves into Arizona.
California, Arizona Look at Task Forces
Legislators in California are considering Senate Bill 1019, which is moving through the committee process and sits in the Senate Appropriations Committee.
It would require the attorney general to establish a California Cargo Theft Task Force to combat cargo and freight crimes, such as theft, diversion, embezzlement, unlawful taking or fraudulent acquisition.
Task force members would investigate, apprehend and recommend for prosecution both individuals and organizations involved in cargo theft or related crimes.
Other responsibilities would include:
- Identifying trends and patterns of cargo theft to compile metrics and values of missing freight
- Coordinating with law enforcement agencies and industry stakeholders to gain a better understanding of the overall cargo theft situation within the state
- Recommending legislation and policy for criminal penalties, enforcement tools or interagency coordination to deter theft while protecting California’s economy
Similarly, Arizona has been considering Senate Bill 1452 for the state attorney general to establish a cargo theft task force similar to a successful ongoing retail task force.
Tony Bradley, president and CEO of the Arizona Trucking Association, testified before a state House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee hearing in March to garner support. He told lawmakers cargo theft is a “very sophisticated international crime issue” that is taking place in Arizona, especially the “hot spot” of Kingman.
“In the last few years, I’ve received almost a call a month from members asking for help what to do. What has occurred is they’re often told just to call Crime Stop because they think we’re just trying to file insurance claims,” Bradley said. “We’re actually interested in getting the cargo back. … What’s important for our purposes is having a central location to call the AG’s office to coordinate with law enforcement to help all 15 counties fight this because it’s happening on all of our interstates.”
Arkansas Declares Cargo Theft Emergency
Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders enacted legislation March 18 that took effect immediately. Act 322 declared the state under a cargo theft emergency. Lawmakers ushered in a change to an existing law adding up to 10 years in an enhanced penalty for cargo theft.
Lawmakers heard about one trucker-broker constituent who owns a business and had a cold storage truck filled with food that was stolen from a depot by an organized retail crime gang. The business owner had invested in security measures, vehicle trackers and truck driver identification measures, but the thieves overcame every obstacle.
When police found the truck at a cold storage warehouse, hundreds of thousands of dollars’ worth of food was gone.
The new law also stipulates that people convicted of theft with the criminal enhancement cannot earn early release credits but must serve the full sentence.
Under the emergency, the state’s General Assembly deemed theft of goods moving in commerce “a pervasive problem” in Arkansas that impacts businesses and consumers, requiring immediate deterrent measures to protect the state economy and preserve public peace, health and safety.
Tennessee Enacts Cargo Theft Laws
Pilferage was listed as the most common type of cargo theft in Tennessee, “indicating continued localized theft activity in key logistics hubs,” according to Overhaul. The state led in pilferage with a 37% share, followed by Texas (27%), Illinois (17%) and California (12%).
Most of the freight stolen in Tennessee during the first three months of this year was pharmaceuticals, electronics, and food and drinks.
Pilferage remained the most common method of cargo theft in Q1, accounting for 37% of all reported incidents, although it decreased compared with previous periods.
Gov. Bill Lee signed two cargo theft deterrent bills that became laws effective July 1. One expanded the criminal offense of organized retail crime to include knowingly using an online marketplace or social media platform to coordinate a meeting to sell, barter or trade stolen merchandise for monetary or other gain.
The other new law added a section to the penal code to criminalize entering a cargo container and removing merchandise, broadening the cargo theft legal definition. At the same time, it gives police and prosecutors clearer authority to pursue criminal charges, according to the Tennessee Trucking Association.
Donna England, TTA president and CEO, noted that cargo theft is a growing concern for members, who were grateful for legislative sponsors, especially Sen. Paul Bailey and Rep. Pat Marsh, who advocated for truckers.
“We recognize this legislation as an important first step, and we know additional efforts will be needed to fully combat cargo theft in the future,” England said.
Other States Exploring New Laws
As cargo theft remains a growing national problem, other states considering cargo theft legislation are Michigan, Missouri, New Jersey and South Carolina.
Cargo Theft Incidents in Pennsylvania
Copilot
Pennsylvania has experienced a significant rise in cargo theft, with the state now ranking among the top five most targeted in the U.S. for freight theft.
Statewide trends
According to the June 2025 Cargo Security Index, Pennsylvania saw a 22% increase in freight theft compared to the preceding weeks, overtaking Georgia for fifth place nationally. CargoNet’s 2025 data shows Pennsylvania’s share of U.S. cargo theft incidents is part of a broader national surge — the U.S. recorded 3,625 incidents in 2025 (up 27% from 2024), with Pennsylvania’s share concentrated in high-risk areas like Philadelphia and Southcentral PA
Philadelphia’s surge
Philadelphia is the hardest-hit city in the state. In 2023, the Eighth District alone recorded 180+ cargo theft cases, up from just over 40 in 2022. Thefts often target unattended loads near distribution centers, with losses in the millions of dollars. High-profile cases include thefts of $234,000 in dimes, $15,000 in tuna, and $30,000 in crab legs
Other PA hotspots
Southcentral Pennsylvania also saw major thefts — for example, 100,000 organic eggs worth $40,000 were stolen from a Greencastle distribution center
National context
The average value per Pennsylvania cargo theft incident is estimated at $202,000, with the typical haul exceeding that Nationally, cargo theft is costing the U.S. economy an estimated $15–35 billion annually when including unreported and indirect losses
Key takeaways
- Pennsylvania’s cargo theft rate is among the highest in the U.S., with Philadelphia and Southcentral PA as major hotspots.
- Incidents are rising sharply, with organized theft methods becoming more common.
- Losses are substantial, and risks persist year-round, not just during holidays or weekends
If you operate in PA, especially in Philadelphia or near major distribution centers, heightened security measures and real-time monitoring are strongly recommended.
PA Rises in List of Top Targets
PMTA
Philadelphia is now a focal point in an alarming uptick in cargo theft across Pennsylvania, with law enforcement scrambling to stem the tide. The June 2025 Cargo Security Index, compiled by GearTrack, CargoNet, and Verisk, reports a 22% increase in statewide freight theft compared to the preceding weeks—underscoring Pennsylvania’s swift ascent to the ranks of the most targeted states nationwide. Pennsylvania replaced Georgia in June in the number five slot. California, Tennessee, Texas, and Illinois rounded out the top five. Most-targeted commodities were food and beverage, household goods, and electronics.
Philadelphia City data reveals the scope of the problem is staggering, with loads waiting near distribution centers for scheduled appointments increasingly susceptible to overnight theft. Cargo theft in Philadelphia‘s Eighth District alone jumped from just over 40 incidents in 2022 to 94 in 2023, with over 180 cases recorded by the end of that year, totaling losses in the millions of dollars.
Philadelphia’s criminals have not shied away from high-value targets. A bold heist in 2023 involved more than $234,000 in dimes, alongside others targeting TVs, alcohol, and seafood, prompting a federal indictment. In 2024, a series of high-profile thefts in the city netted 400 cases of beef worth $15,000, $10,000 in tuna, and $30,000 in crab legs.
Late last year, a coordinated sting—“Operation Beef Bandit”—led to the arrest of a ring of four Philadelphia men responsible for stealing meat, seafood, and alcohol from trucks at NJ Turnpike rest stops. The suspects were connected to similar thefts over three years in the tri-state area, involving millions of dollars’ worth of merchandise.
However, the arrests have not stemmed the tide. This summer, a Memorial Day robbery netted thieves $150,000 in beef in South Philly while two drivers slept in the cab.
Philadelphia is not solely responsible for the Commonwealth’s increase in cargo theft. Southcentral Pennsylvania was the target earlier this year when 100,000 organic eggs, totaling $40,000, were stolen while a trailer was parked at a distribution center in Greencastle.
On the national front, the National Insurance Crime Bureau (NICB) confirms that cargo theft surged 27% in 2024, with theft occurrences and average losses expected to climb another 22% by the end of 2025. The typical haul now exceeds $202,000 in value per incident—a financial blow that ripples across supply chains to the tune of up to $35 billion annually, increasing consumer prices and insurance costs.
Often, local police lack the tools to investigate and address these crimes, which frequently have patterns and players that cross jurisdictions. For example, “Operation Beef Bandit” required close the coordination of the FBI, Secret Service, and state investigators in both Pennsylvania and New Jersey. The American Trucking Associations (ATA) is advancing the Combating Organized Retail Crime Act, a bipartisan proposal poised to enhance federal tools for disrupting these sophisticated criminal networks and establish an integrated response led by the Department of Homeland Security.
One factor contributing to theft risk is the limited availability of safe truck parking. When truck drivers cannot find secure spaces, they are often forced to park in unsecured areas, making their cargo more vulnerable. The Pennsylvania Motor Truck Association (PMTA) has long advocated for expanded truck parking capacity as a critical safety measure—not just for driver rest and compliance with federal hours-of-service rules, but also to reduce theft opportunities.
Prevention Tips and Best Practices
To stay ahead of evolving threats, trucking companies should adopt multi-layered defenses:
- Use high-quality locks and tamper-evident seals on trailers to deter unauthorized access.
- Equip shipments with GPS tracking and geofencing alerts to detect unexpected route deviations.
- Drivers:
- Stay vigilant and report suspicious activity
- Secure parking in well-lit, heavily traveled, and/or monitored locations, and avoid overnight stops in known hotspots.
- Use surroundings to secure your trailer. For example, if possible, back up against a fence or building.
- Don’t discuss your load or your destination with anyone who doesn’t need to know.
- If you think you are being followed, slow down and allow the vehicle to pass you. If that doesn’t work, get off at an exit that offers a safe haven to see if the vehicle follows. Call 911 and report the incident if you are still suspicious. Then call your supervisor and find a safe and secure area to park.
- Try to have enough hours and fuel to drive several hours after initial pick-up before stopping to deter thieves from targeting your load.
- If your vehicle has to be left unattended, make it as short as possible; lock it up and take the keys.
- When you return to the truck, scan the area for suspicious persons or vehicles and adjust to the situation.
- Never confront a criminal – your safety is the priority! When in doubt, call 911.
Gabrijel Malijoku
What you need to know
- SMS is a trailing indicator: Because new inspection data takes 30 to 60 days to appear in the Safety Measurement System, a monthly score update reflects past performance rather than real-time compliance risks.
- Recent violations carry triple the weight: The FMCSA weights violations from the past six months three times as heavily as older data, meaning a brief spike in HOS infractions can trigger sudden, severe shifts in a fleet’s percentile rank.
- Smaller fleets face higher volatility: In lower inspection-volume bands, a single HOS violation represents a disproportionately larger share of a fleet’s record, accelerating how quickly a small carrier can cross the 65% intervention threshold.
The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration’s Safety Measurement System scores every motor carrier in seven behavior categories and publishes updated results monthly. Most fleet managers know the scores exist. Far fewer understand the mechanics well enough to recognize when their Hours-of-Service (HOS) Compliance BASIC is trending toward the intervention threshold before a warning letter confirms it.
The gap is not negligence. It is a product of how the scoring system works and how most fleets monitor it.
How the HOS BASIC score actually works
The HOS Compliance BASIC does not treat all violations equally. Every HOS violation recorded at a roadside inspection is weighted for both severity and recency. Recent violations carry the greatest impact: those from the past six months count three times as much as violations that are 12 to 24 months old, while violations from seven to 12 months ago count twice as much. That weighting means a fleet’s percentile can move significantly within a single quarter, often before managers see the change reflected in SMS data.
The percentile itself is not an absolute count of violations. It is a relative ranking that compares each carrier against peers with a similar number of relevant inspections. To make those comparisons more meaningful, the FMCSA groups carriers into five inspection-volume bands.
That distinction matters for smaller fleets. A carrier with only 5 to 10 relevant inspections in the past 24 months can cross the 65% intervention threshold with relatively few violations because each violation represents a larger share of its inspection record. The same violation would have less impact on a carrier with hundreds of inspections.
Many small-fleet operators assume fewer inspections reduce their compliance risk. In practice, fewer inspections often mean each violation carries more weight in the percentile calculation.
The notification lag
New inspection data typically takes 30 to 60 days to appear in the SMS after a roadside inspection. A fleet reviewing its scores on the first Friday of the month, when the FMCSA publishes the monthly update, is looking at a snapshot that may not reflect inspections from the past several weeks. If a fleet experienced a spike in HOS violations in the last month, those inspections are unlikely to appear in the current score.
That delay makes the SMS a trailing indicator by design. By the time a percentile crosses 65% and a warning letter arrives, the violations that caused the score to move occurred well before that notification. The warning letter does not predict a problem. It confirms one that already happened.
Where the leading indicators actually live
At the 2026 Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance (CVSA) International Roadcheck, hours-of-service violations were the leading cause of driver out-of-service orders, accounting for nearly a third of all driver OOS citations. Yet those violations rarely begin at the roadside. In many cases, the warning signs were already present in the drivers’ duty-status logs and electronic logging device (ELD) records before the inspection ever occurred.
The same patterns that eventually drive a carrier’s HOS Compliance BASIC are often visible much earlier in a well-configured ELD fleet management platform. Reports highlighting uncertified logs, unresolved unassigned driving events, unsupported duty-status edits, and drivers approaching their HOS limits without a corresponding dispatch response can all signal elevated compliance risk before a roadside inspection occurs.
These are not post-inspection findings. They are pre-inspection indicators that fleet managers can identify and address before an officer records a violation against the carrier’s Department of Transportation number.
What this means for compliance monitoring
A monthly SMS check tells a fleet what already happened to its percentile. A weekly review of ELD data helps reveal what may happen next. Most fleets rely heavily on the first while underusing the second.
The practical approach is to run HOS violation and unassigned driving reports from the ELD platform on a weekly cadence, and to review edit history for patterns that indicate systemic dispatch or training issues rather than isolated driver errors. Understanding how time weighting works changes how fleets prioritize violations. A citation from last week enters the SMS calculation at full weight, while a citation from 13 months ago is already at its lowest impact level.
The threshold does not move. What moves is a fleet’s position relative to it, driven by violations that were visible in ELD data long before the FMCSA scored them.
Doug Marcello
Plaintiff attorneys have a seminar title for your safety data. They call it a treasure trove.
At their conferences and webinars, they teach each other exactly what data trucking companies generate, how to obtain it through discovery, and how to make it admissible at trial. They study your telematics systems, your electronic control modules, your collision avoidance alerts, your driver performance platforms. They know what you have, often better than you do.
The goal of all of this education is straightforward: leverage your own data against you. Take the information you collected to operate more safely and use it to construct the narrative that your company represents a systemic threat to community safety — the Reptile Theory strategy we covered in Part 5 of this series.
The trucking industry’s most common response to this reality has been what I call the Discovery Fallacy.
The Discovery Fallacy
The Discovery Fallacy is the belief that if you don’t look at your data, you won’t have to turn it over. That avoiding analysis is the same as avoiding exposure. That ignorance of your own safety record is a litigation strategy.
It is not. It is the opposite.
The data exists whether you look at it or not. Your telematics system is recording. Your ECM is logging. Your collision avoidance system is generating alerts. Your communication platform is archiving. None of that stops because your safety department decided not to build a formal analysis program.
What the Discovery Fallacy actually produces is the worst possible outcome: plaintiff attorneys discover data you never reviewed, surface patterns you never identified, and present to a jury evidence that your company had warning signals it never acted on. The narrative that creates — the picture of an organization that generates safety data it deliberately ignores — is precisely the systemic indifference argument that Reptile Theory is designed to exploit.
You do not choose whether your data exists. You choose whether you get there first.
The Alternative: The Identify-Analyze-Manage-Enforce Framework
The carriers that have transformed their data from a liability into a defense asset did not do it by generating less data or avoiding analysis. They did it by implementing a systematic approach to their own safety information — one that creates a documented record of organizational competence that defeats the systemic failure narrative before it can be constructed.
The framework has four steps. They are sequential and interdependent. Skipping any one of them produces a partial record that is worse than no record at all.
Step 1: Identify — Know What You Have
The starting point sounds obvious: know what data your operation generates. In practice, many carriers do not have a clear answer to this question until after an accident, when they are working with counsel and accident reconstructionists to determine what records exist and what they contain.
Your data landscape likely includes: telematics systems capturing location, speed, and route data; electronic control module records including hard brakes, rapid deceleration, and engine performance; collision avoidance and lane departure system alerts; dashcam footage, both forward and driver-facing; communication and dispatch records; driver performance and safety scoring data from any platform you use; hours of service and ELD records; drug and alcohol testing records; and training documentation.
Each system generates a different type of record. Each type of record has different preservation implications, different discovery exposure, and different evidentiary potential — for both sides. You cannot manage what you have not identified. The first step is a complete data inventory: what systems are running, what they capture, how long records are retained, and who has access to them.
Conduct this inventory before the accident. After the accident, everything you learn about your data landscape is potentially discoverable and potentially harmful.
Step 2: Analyze — Which Data Relates to Maximum Risks
Once you know what data you have, the second step is understanding what it tells you about your specific operation’s risk profile. This is where many carriers stop — they have the data but they have not translated it into operational intelligence.
Different operations generate different primary risk signals. A carrier running long-haul routes on I-80 through Nebraska is going to see a different leading indicator of crash potential than a carrier making urban deliveries on the George Washington Bridge corridor into New York. Speeding on open highway is a different risk profile than hard braking in dense urban traffic. Know which indicators are most predictive of accident potential for your specific routes, loads, and driver population.
This analysis serves two purposes simultaneously. Operationally, it tells you where to focus your safety management attention. For litigation defense, it establishes that your company conducted a genuine, data-driven assessment of its safety risk — not a generic compliance exercise, but a specific analysis of the conditions most likely to produce harm in your operation. That documented analytical process is evidence of organizational competence that directly defeats the Reptile Theory systemic failure argument.
The analysis should be documented. The methodology should be defensible. The conclusions should be specific to your operation and updated as your routes, fleet, and driver population change.
Step 3: Manage — Monitor and Respond
Identifying and analyzing your data creates knowledge. Managing it creates defense.
Management means establishing ongoing monitoring of the key indicators you have identified as most predictive of accident potential in your operation — and taking documented action when those indicators exceed the thresholds you have set. This is the step that transforms your data from a static record into an active safety management system.
The critical word is documented. Monitoring that does not generate records of what was observed and what action was taken is monitoring is difficult to defend. When plaintiff counsel asks — and they will ask — whether your company reviewed its safety data and responded to warning signs, the answer needs to be supported by a paper trail that shows exactly what was reviewed, when, by whom, and what happened as a result.
This is also where the DataQs reform we covered in the series becomes relevant internally. Just as you need to manage and challenge your external FMCSA safety record, you need to manage and respond to the internal signals your own systems generate. The carrier whose records show a pattern of identifying risk indicators and addressing them before accidents occur is the carrier with a fundamentally different litigation posture than one whose records show warning signs that were never acted on.
The documented management record is the most powerful single defense asset you can build. It answers the Reptile Theory’s central argument — that your company ignored warning signs — with objective evidence that you did not.
Step 4: Enforce — The Hardest Step
The fourth step is where safety data management becomes genuine organizational accountability — and where many carriers struggle.
Enforcement means acting on what your data tells you about individual drivers. It means coaching, retraining, and when necessary, disciplinary action or termination based on documented performance data. In a tight driver market, these are difficult decisions. The temptation to look past warning signs from a driver you need on the road is understandable.
But consider the calculus. Your best drivers — the ones with clean records, who follow your safety protocols, who drive defensively and professionally — are generating revenue and building your reputation. How many safe miles do they have to run to pay for one bad actor’s nuclear verdict? And the more serious question: will that one bad actor, left unchecked because the driver market is tight, be an existential threat to your business?
Documented enforcement is not just a safety practice. It is the final piece of the litigation defense. It shows that when your data identified a problem, your organization acted. That documented accountability — the coaching sessions, the performance improvement plans, the terminations when warranted — is the evidentiary record that defeats the argument that your company knew about dangerous driver behavior and did nothing.
The absence of documented enforcement, by contrast, is one of the most damaging things plaintiff counsel can surface. A driver with a history of speeding alerts, hard brake events, and collision avoidance triggers who is still on the road at the time of an accident — without any documented response to those indicators — is a Reptile Theory case waiting to happen.
The Choice
The Data Dilemma comes down to a single decision that every trucking company makes, either explicitly or by default.
You can get ahead of your data — identify what you have, analyze what it means, manage the key indicators, and enforce accountability when the data demands it. You create the narrative: a safety-focused organization that uses data proactively, responds to warning signs systematically, and holds itself accountable to the standards it sets.
Or you can abdicate the narrative to plaintiff attorneys. They will find your data. They will analyze it. They will identify your warning signs. And they will present it to a jury in the worst possible light — as evidence that your company had every opportunity to prevent what happened and chose not to.
The data is there. The question is who tells the story.
The DENUCLEARIZATION Connection
The Data Dilemma is Part 6 of the DENUCLEARIZATION series because it sits at the center of everything we have covered. The Reptile Theory (Part 5) requires a systemic failure narrative — your unmanaged safety data is the raw material. The DataQs reform (news reactive, two weeks ago) addressed your external FMCSA safety record. This week addresses your internal safety data. The Motus piece addressed your regulatory compliance record. All three records — external safety data, internal operational data, and regulatory profile — contribute to the organizational narrative that plaintiff attorneys construct and that a proactive carrier can defeat.
The defense that wins is built before the accident. The data management framework is how you build it.
Alex Lockie
With Roadcheck under way and spot rates hitting unheard-of new highs, and cut-rate carriers either chased out of the industry or simply shy around inspectors, Overdrive asked New Hampshire State Police the question likely on lots of truckers’ minds: Why not do Roadcheck every week?
That got a chuckle, at least.
NHSP’s Lieutenant Thomas Conlon, leader of Troop G of the truck enforcement branch, said “we’re out here every day, every week” but that Roadcheck “is when we try to really clear the schedules to make sure we have an increased presence.”
This year, Roadcheck’s focused on two things: Load securement and hours of service violations. The latter of which comes against a backdrop of widespread, turbocharged ELD cheating.
On April 1, a new out-of-service code took effect that differentiated between old-school false logs (like using personal conveyance to advance a load) to new-school entire fabrications, like calling an overseas office to hack the backend and produce spotless logs.
While Overdrive Chief Editor Todd Dills found inspectors in Tennessee and Wisconsin sharing a veritable how-to on ways to spot this new generation of cheats, inspectors in New England were a little less in-the-know, or maybe just a little more humble.
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration chief Derek Barrs “did a fantastic job” addressing ELD cheating on CBS News’ viral 60 Minutes story, said NHSP Sergeant Anthony Cattabriga. “But enforcement folks, we’re behind the curve on this.”
“Just like everything else with tech,” he added, industry gets it first, then enforcement figures it out later.
Basically, Cattabriga admitted that hacked logs aren’t easy to spot roadside.
“It takes detective work for us to follow through and figure out is this an actual factual or some sort of chameleon log,” he said, referring to the revolving door self-certified ELDs, which might simply rebrand after getting shut out of FMCSA’s registry.
FMCSA said it’s solved the problem of self-certified ELDs for now, and has been well on the way toward an ELD-registry clean-up. The Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance also has new in-depth guidance on how to catch the new generation of ELD cheats, but many rank-and-file troopers for now are still learning.
At a weigh station in Vermont, inspectors mostly agreed, saying it’s difficult, if not impossible, for inspectors to catch false logs like that.
Cattabriga said he’d seen hotshots running two ELD apps and caught them before, but he didn’t have an answer for how exactly to catch full-on ELD fabricators.
One inspector outside of New Hampshire explained that the one edge officers have roadside is that since ELD cheating with fabricated logs isn’t a criminal offense, just a ticket, the burden of proof is somewhat lower.
Rather than “probable cause,” an inspector writing a violation for HOS fabrication only needs “reasonable suspicion.”
Imagine a driver showing up to the scales with bloodshot eyes and a still-cold half-empty energy drink in the cupholder. This driver’s logs show he’s got nearly a full set of hours and just emerged from the sleeper berth.
Officers would know to double check. If digging through the cab, officers found a fuel receipt showing that driver had been in New Haven, Connecticut, four hours prior, and they were now in Lebanon, New Hampshire, a violation under 395.8 e(2) could be in order. That’s reasonable suspicion.
This kind of ELD manipulation had resulted in hundreds of violations with just a couple weeks’ worth of data in Overdrive‘s sister company RigDig‘s internal accounting, current as of roughly mid-April.
Over the first weeks of last month, the following states were making the biggest dent, with California, Washington, Ohio and South Dakota just behind them recording violation numbers in the double digits.
Those aren’t big numbers by any means. With just more than six weeks in the book as an OOS condition, enforcement will likely only get tougher from here.
What’s new at Roadcheck?
This also represented the first Roadcheck in a decade with English Language Proficiency violations generating a mandatory OOS order, and the first under FMCSA’s “aggressive” new administrator.
Conlon said ELP violations in New Hampshire were “not an everyday occurrence,” but certainly something that happened. Overdrive‘s RigDig analysis shows New Hampshire recorded just 14 ELP OOS violations in 2026 through mid-April.
As for those OOS orders resulting in drivers actually taken off the road, Conlon said New Hampshire simply documents the order, and doesn’t babysit the driver, as is often the case.
[Related: Why state police are letting drivers placed OOS for English violations go free]
Tucked away in a sparsely populated corner of the country, the state doesn’t really see a lot of non-domiciled CDLs or non-English speakers. New Hampshire is one of just seven states that never opted-in to issuing non-domiciled CDLs.
FMCSA has put a new emphasis on documentation. Inspectors now have been asked to document more and more about their interactions with carriers, in an effort to create the kind of paper trail the agency can use to shut down chameleon carriers and some of those “scofflaws” who might not even have rolled this week, according to another inspector.
Overall, inspectors in New England on this rainy day at Roadcheck had almost entirely positive things to say about local carriers, whom Conlon referred to as “partners.”
“I would say the vast majority of truckers and carriers we interact with are trying to do the right thing to keep the highway safe,” he said, “but there’s always certain elements that skip steps on purpose, or try to make as quick a buck as possible. But for the most part, this is a very safety-oriented industry.”
Tyson Fisher
When it comes to expanding truck parking, states have been telling the federal government, “Show me the money!” How does more than $1 billion sound?
Although that amount has not yet been allocated, nearly $1.2 billion is on the table. That money comes from three different bills, all of which use language similar to that of the Truck Parking Safety Improvement Act, including prohibitions on paid-parking projects.
One of those bills, a $1.2 trillion spending package, is a done deal. Signed into law in February, that bill set aside $200 million for truck parking expansion. Just a few months later, the Department of Transportation is already getting the ball rolling to dole out that money.
On Tuesday, June 9, Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy announced more than $600 million in infrastructure funding. That includes the $200 million for truck parking from the spending package. The remaining dollars come from previous bills, including the 2021 Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act.
Now, the federal government is accepting applications due July 15 so it can disburse those funds. The relatively quick turnaround will get truck parking projects moving forward sooner rather than later.
“From our thriving commercial space industry to our hardworking truck drivers, the Trump Administration is delivering for the American people,” Duffy said in a statement. “We are moving at the Speed of Trump to prioritize critical infrastructure needs in grants, move federal dollars out the door, and start turning dirt.”
While states and other public entities try to get a piece of that pie, there may be a much bigger pie ahead.
Currently, a new highway bill awaits a full House vote. In that bill is a near carbon copy of the Truck Parking Safety Improvement Act, which would allocate $750 million to parking expansion projects over five years.
“If the next surface transportation reauthorization fails to provide dedicated funding for truck parking, but authorizes even a single penny of funding for new initiatives, OOIDA will use every tool it has to ensure the legislation is defeated,” the Association wrote in 2025. “Based on a history of strong bipartisan support for the Truck Parking Safety Improvement Act, we are confident the House will again agree this crisis requires federal leadership to solve. Together, we can deliver a key victory for hundreds of thousands of truckers across the country.”
The highway bill still needs to clear both the House and the Senate. During that process, the truck parking provision could be modified or eliminated.
Last week, the House Appropriations Committee advanced a funding bill for Transportation, Housing and Urban Development (THUD). That bill also includes $200 million for truck parking expansion projects.
If the highway and THUD bills both make it to the finish line as is, that would mean an additional $950 million in funding for truck parking. That’s on top of the $200 million already underway from the spending package in February.
Anything can happen between now and when those bills are signed into law, but 2026 could be a milestone year for publicly available truck parking.
Jenna Hume
Key takeaways
- Cargo theft losses in 2025 surged to $725M, with confirmed incidents rising and the true impact likely much higher.
- Thieves are using strategic scams, including “Trojan horse” drivers, email infiltration, and double-brokering scheme adjustments.
- Point of pickup remains the weakest link, where high turnover and limited training increase exposure to theft.
168387569 | Vitpho | Dreamstime.com
2025 was a good year for cargo thieves and, consequently, a bad year for the supply chain and the trucking industry. According to Verisk CargoNet, estimated losses rose by 60% to approximately $725 million, though the true figure is likely 10 to 15 times higher. Confirmed cargo thefts rose 18% year over year from 2,243 to 2,646.
CargoNet
The potential silver lining here is that cargo theft awareness is on the rise. According to Andrey Drotenko, president of strategic relations for Verified Carrier, awareness of strategic theft has increased in the industry as such incidents have become increasingly relevant. And this includes best practices to prevent strategic theft.
But cargo thieves are constantly evolving. So far in 2026, cargo theft experts have noted new scams, trends, weaknesses, and more.
Trojan horse scam exploits trucking vetting systems
In response to other cargo theft schemes, the trucking industry has cracked down on verifying the legitimacy of carriers. Unfortunately, in this chess match of cargo theft, the thieves have adjusted accordingly. Freight brokers and fleets are vetting carriers, but can they realistically vet every single truck driver?
“The bad guys, instead of trying to pass through some of these vetting platforms that are out there, send one of their crew members to go work as a driver at a legitimate trucking company,” Scott Cornell, chief risk officer for SPG Cargo & Logistics and chair of TAPA Americas, explained. “So now that the trucking company is a completely legitimate company, they would pass through the vetting process of any of these platforms, no issue-type scenario.”
The driver then hauls loads while communicating with their fellow thieves until a load they want comes up. The driver parks somewhere on their route, walks away, and the thieves swoop in to steal the cargo.
According to Cornell, the truck driver in these situations is often fired for leaving the cargo unsupervised in a breach of protocol. This is what the thieves want, so the driver can get hired somewhere else, and the cycle of theft can continue.
Unaware that they were being used to bypass vetting platforms, the trucking company believes it was a straight theft, when in fact it was a strategic theft. The Trojan horse scam doesn’t become clear until the driver and/or their equipment are connected to past thefts and firings. Experts have just begun to investigate and identify this particular scam.
To prevent this type of theft, Cornell says trucking companies should conduct thorough background checks on drivers. For freight brokers, Cornell recommends requesting drivers who have been employed for more than six months for high-value loads. There are also new and emerging technologies that can help verify drivers at the point of pickup as well as their equipment.
Verified Carrier
Emerging 2026 cargo theft trends reshape freight security risks
So far in 2026, there are a few other cargo theft trends emerging that the industry needs to be aware of.
Cargo thieves use hacking and email infiltration to intercept freight
Technology is not new to cargo thieves, but the sophistication of their technological theft attempts, especially via email, is increasing.
“The level of sophistication right now is increasing, whether [cargo thieves] are trying to have a domain name that looks exactly the same or going a step further and hacking into computers to where they can essentially have a team-viewer level access of what you’re doing,” Drotenko said. “And then they could go and do things from your computer, as if they’re you, and then delete any trace of emails or anything that they did … And I think that’s a new level of sophistication that in this industry hasn’t been a trend, and we’re seeing more of it.”
Cornell also emphasized increased email infiltration efforts from cargo thieves. Thieves are accessing a carrier’s email, intercepting communications, creating their own email address within the carrier’s email, and then bidding on loads. This method has also been used by thieves to commit double-brokering scams and circumvent traditional prevention methods.
Point of pickup remains top vulnerability
Cargo is at its most vulnerable at the point of pickup, a situation that hasn’t improved so far this year.
“The weakest link, though, is still going to be at the point of pickup,” Drotenko explained. “That’s where you have the highest turnover. Those people aren’t the ones who are going out to the conferences; they’re not the ones learning about the latest trends or what to look for.”
Drotenko emphasized the importance of training employees who are primarily at the point of pickup on current cargo theft trends and how to protect themselves from these scams.
Tight freight capacity challenges cargo theft prevention practices
Trucking has seen a tight freight market in 2026, as the U.S. economy has suffered and global unrest continues. For Drotenko, this raises concerns about the industry remembering and following through on cargo theft prevention best practices.
“At the end of the day, when you’re between a rock and a hard place in a tight market, you just don’t have the luxury of getting to say no to a lot of carriers to find a good one,” he explained.
Still, he encourages continuing strong vetting and verification practices, even as capacity tightens.
Overexposure of theft prevention tactics risks aiding cargo criminals
The trucking industry has made great strides in becoming more knowledgeable about cargo theft and sharing insights between fleets, brokers, and carriers, but how this information is shared has become increasingly important.
“The industry has a habit of posting its solutions on social media,” Cornell said. “The intent is good; the intent is ‘we want to help each other prevent theft.’ The problem is the bad guys keep an eye on us. They watch us, and they know what we do. And I think this is a perfect example of how they make adjustments.”
