sarcasm aside, i'm not a g-man tho i do know the bank secrecy act, the usa patriot act and anti-money laundering statues both, as the saying goes, "frontwards and backwards" as this has been my specialty for 30 years so with that...
It was a joke. I have been taking user names and abbreviating them in recent posts, and thought this one might be entertaining for other readers. If you are taking offense to it you have my apologies, it was not intended to offend.
Quote:
the issue of exporting or importing greater than $10,0000 u.s. (or foreign currency equivalent) is not a tsa issue but a cpb issue as they are the ones who act on it-which is why fincen form 105 is presented to cpb and not the tsa (read the instruction on page 2 of the form under "who must file"). it is the responsibility of the pax to declare the currecny to cpb, answer their questions, not those from the tsa and face any applicable penalties from cpb for not declaring.
TSA refers concerns about cash transportation along to law enforcement. What happens from there is up to the LEO’s. The error in STL will be reviewed by the courts. The only error I see in that incident was the language the TSO used with the passenger. Otherwise he followed procedure. As I have stated in the past, this passenger was looking to cause a problem, and he achieved his goal.
Quote:
now you state "if it looks like it might be more than $10,000" and "If I cant tell how much cash it is", why don't simply count the currency? it's out of your jurisdiction but if it makes you fell better, why don't you count it if it makes you happy
I wont count it because:
1. I don’t have the time
2. That’s why we have supervisors and law enforcement personnel
3. SOP does not require it of me, only that I bring it to a supervisors attention.
4. Referring a passenger or their possessions to Law Enforcement is not a violation of that individuals rights. Not in any way, shape, or form.
5. I don’t have the time
Now, lets set the “Way-Back Machine” to the day that this originally hit the EOS blog page (I was not posting to FT then). My initial comment after reviewing the recording what that the TSO in question sent this one down the tubes by using inappropriate language with the passenger. There is NO excuse for that. None. Disciplinary action is warranted for this incident. Exactly what I cannot say, I’m not his supervisor nor do I know anything about his background.
It was a joke.
TSA refers concerns about cash transportation along to law enforcement. What happens from there is up to the LEO’s. The error in STL will be reviewed by the courts. The only error I see in that incident was the language the TSO used with the passenger. Otherwise he followed procedure. As I have stated in the past, this passenger was looking to cause a problem, and he achieved his goal.
Looks more like some TSO was looking to cause a problem and he achieved that goal.
She screwed up by stating that she knew what was in the envelopes when she could not have known without opening them. She gave the court her opinion about what was in them, and stated it as fact. Yeah, she screwed up good.
Wrong,
She stated she knew what was not in the envelope. She knew the envelop did not contain weapons or explosives.
She testified honestly, truthfully and with integrity.
We know you would lie in similar circumstances and believe that is what other TSO's should do.
Actually Eric my boy, I was not defending her actions, I was providing information on where her authority to search begins and ends. She screwed up by stating that she knew what was in the envelopes when she could not have known without opening them. She gave the court her opinion about what was in them, and stated it as fact. Yeah, she screwed up good.
Ron,
She was just being honest regarding her intent. In the same circumstance, I'm sure you wouldn't make that mistake.
The TSO in the Bierfeldt incident actually knew (having physically and visually inspected) that there wasn't anything in Mr Bierfeldt's luggage that presented a threat to aviation safety, yet he continued to detain and interrogate him. The instant the TSO knew there was no threat, he should have sent Mr. Bierfeldt on his way.
Programs: UA-1k, HH Silver, Giving Tootsie Pops to UA employees, & now a retired hockey goalie
Posts: 10,128
Quote:
Originally Posted by tsadude1
Quote:
Originally Posted by TSORon
Quote:
Originally Posted by goalie
and once the tso has determined the contents of the envelopes are not a threat to bring down an aircraft*, or to use your words, "she is unsure about them" but now is sure once she has viewed the contents and said contents not a threat, what next, ron?
*you have posted on several occasions that you look for things which a threat to bring down an aircraft and afaik, cash is not a threat
Well G-Man, if it looks like it might be more than $10,000 I pass the issue along to a supervisor. If not, then I tell the man thanks for his time and send him on his way, after completing the remainder of the search of course.
If I cant tell how much cash it is, I still pass it along to a supervisor. After all, LEO calls are their job and not mine (I’m not allowed to call a LEO here at my airport, a local procedure).
Ron, please shut up. Read your SOP.
thank you . a little late on saying it but again, thank you
__________________
just my humble opinion but i used to try and stop hockey pucks so what do i know . Nighthawks fans are everywhere
"TSA said in a statement on the Bierfeldt incident that travelers are required to cooperate with screeners, and while it is legal to carry any amount of money when flying domestically, the agency believes cooperation includes answering questions about property. As a result of the recording, however, TSA determined that “the tone and language used by the TSA employee was inappropriate and proper disciplinary action was taken.”"
TSA employees will get zero cooperation or answers from me if they ask questions irrelevant to airport/aircraft security. (That's nearly every question they ask...)
__________________
You cannot uphold American ideology with un-American actions. It's time for change.
Programs: CO Platinum, SPG Platinum, HH Gold - whatever that's worth now :(
Posts: 12,499
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spiff
"TSA said in a statement on the Bierfeldt incident that travelers are required to cooperate with screeners, and while it is legal to carry any amount of money when flying domestically, the agency believes cooperation includes answering questions about property. As a result of the recording, however, TSA determined that “the tone and language used by the TSA employee was inappropriate and proper disciplinary action was taken.”"
TSA employees will get zero cooperation or answers from me if they ask questions irrelevant to airport/aircraft security. (That's nearly every question they ask...)
The TSA can believe whatever it wants - but I will absolutely not cooperate with screeners or communicate with them beyond grunts and demands for new gloves.
__________________ Rich and 50 is the same as middle-class and 30
The TSA can believe whatever it wants - but I will absolutely not cooperate with screeners or communicate with them beyond grunts and demands for new gloves.
Nor will I. I can't wait for the day some TSO pulls me aside for "non-cooperation." That day will be his/her - and their supervisors - worst nightmare.
Programs: UA-1k, HH Silver, Giving Tootsie Pops to UA employees, & now a retired hockey goalie
Posts: 10,128
Quote:
Originally Posted by TSORon
It was a joke. I have been taking user names and abbreviating them in recent posts, and thought this one might be entertaining for other readers. If you are taking offense to it you have my apologies, it was not intended to offend.
TSA refers concerns about cash transportation along to law enforcement. What happens from there is up to the LEO’s. The error in STL will be reviewed by the courts. The only error I see in that incident was the language the TSO used with the passenger. Otherwise he followed procedure. As I have stated in the past, this passenger was looking to cause a problem, and he achieved his goal.
I wont count it because:
1. I don’t have the time
2. That’s why we have supervisors and law enforcement personnel
3. SOP does not require it of me, only that I bring it to a supervisors attention.
4. Referring a passenger or their possessions to Law Enforcement is not a violation of that individuals rights. Not in any way, shape, or form.
5. I don’t have the time
Now, lets set the “Way-Back Machine” to the day that this originally hit the EOS blog page (I was not posting to FT then). My initial comment after reviewing the recording what that the TSO in question sent this one down the tubes by using inappropriate language with the passenger. There is NO excuse for that. None. Disciplinary action is warranted for this incident. Exactly what I cannot say, I’m not his supervisor nor do I know anything about his background.
first off, apology accepted but you gots ta know your audience
second: the law is clear about currency transportation. any amount transported domestically is 100% legal and there is nothing in the law that says you can report it. your sop may state that you must report it but your sop is in violation of the law. as i stated previously (and in numerous other posts), the only law enforcement agency that can be involved is cbp if the amount is greater than $10,000 u.s. and is being transported either iinto or out of the united states, period
third: "Referring a passenger or their possessions to Law Enforcement is not a violation of that individuals rights. Not in any way, shape, or form." and what is the law that says you can do just that. under what grounds? you are not a leo so you do not have that authority. again, if your sop says so, it is in violation of the law.
fourt: "As I have stated in the past, this passenger was looking to cause a problem, and he achieved his goal." you cannot say that with 100% certainty just as i cannot say the opposite is true with 100% certainty as neither one of us were there. you can have your opinion as can i but neither of us can be 100% sure.
__________________
just my humble opinion but i used to try and stop hockey pucks so what do i know . Nighthawks fans are everywhere
Uhh, no, but thanks for playing our game! Here are some parting gifts….
Quote:
She stated she knew what was not in the envelope. She knew the envelop did not contain weapons or explosives.
That would imply that she knew what was in the envelopes then. She didn’t, so if she didn’t know what was in them then she could not have known what was not in them.
Quote:
She testified honestly, truthfully and with integrity.
No, she didn’t. To say that she knows what is not in the envelopes states that she knows what IS in them. She did not make an accurate statement, she provided the court with her feelings, not facts.
Quote:
We know you would lie in similar circumstances and believe that is what other TSO's should do.
We know that you cant tell the difference between the truth and a lie. Other than that, well I believe that you will rationalize what you can to meet your own personal belief’s.
. a little late on saying it but again, thank you 
. Nighthawks fans are everywhere
but you gots ta know your audience 
