first off, apology accepted but you gots ta know your audience
Kinda hard to see your face from here, but I’ll keep that in mind.
Quote:
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
I don’t argue that point. What I know is that large amounts of cash can be and usually is considered suspicious. Asking questions about it is not a violation of anyone’s rights, as long as there is no intimidation (physical or otherwise) about it. If I ask you a question, as far as I am concerned, you are more than welcome to ignore me. What I do with that is my business, at least until the LEO arrives.
Quote:
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.
There is no law that says I can’t. No procedure, no civil code, nothing. I’m not telling the LEO that you have broken a law, only that they may wish to investigate further. What that LEO does from there is the LEO’s choice.
Quote:
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.
Very true. Opinions are like … well I wont go there, but I’m sure you get my point.
Uhh, no, but thanks for playing our game! Here are some parting gifts….
If you had the reading comprehension of a 4th grader, you would realize I am not wrong. But thanks for playing our game! Here are some parting gifts....
Quote:
Originally Posted by TSORon
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.
She testified that she knew there were not weapons, or explosives in the envelope based on the X-ray and explosive testing. You are not seriously going to argue these test are unreliable are you?
The court ruled that that is all the TSA is allowed to do. You don't need to know exactly what is in anything as long as you know what is in it is not a weapon or explosive.
We know that you cant tell the difference between the truth and a lie. That is why you said you would lie in the same situation and she was wrong for telling the truth. Your post show that you are already rationalizing that what you say would not be a "lie" to meet your own personal belief’s.
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.
Question: Was there an elephant in the envelope?
Answer: No sir, there was not.
Question: Aha, so you are stating that you know what was in the envelope.
Answer: No sir, one can know something is not the right answer, without knowing what is the right answer.
I don’t argue that point. What I know is that large amounts of cash can be and usually is considered suspicious. Asking questions about it is not a violation of anyone’s rights, as long as there is no intimidation (physical or otherwise) about it. If I ask you a question, as far as I am concerned, you are more than welcome to ignore me. What I do with that is my business, at least until the LEO arrives.
Not letting a person continue on their way is intimidating. Asking a person if they want to fly today is intimidating.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TSORon
There is no law that says I can’t. No procedure, no civil code, nothing. I’m not telling the LEO that you have broken a law, only that they may wish to investigate further. What that LEO does from there is the LEO’s choice.
If an average citizen detained someone until the cops arrived because they think the individual might be involved in some illegal activity (didn't see them commit a crime, they just look suspicious), they would be subject to charges of false imprisonment. When an agent of the government does it, it is a violation of the individual's Constitutional rights.
1) You carry +/- $100,000 cash with you when you travel?!?
Maybe your cash hasn't been discovered because you haven't had a bag check? Has it ever been discovered and have you ever been asked to "account for it" by the TSA?
Of course it has been seen and only my occupation has been asked.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TsoJohnDoe
Do you declare your money when you travel?
If you mean do I fill out the Immigration form and state I have the cash? Of course !
My head was about to implode so I stopped at page 12. If there are anymore responses after that page I didn't see.
__________________ Never Underestimate The Importance Of Innocence To The Innocent Man
What I know is that large amounts of cash can be and usually is considered suspicious.
And that's the heart of the problem here! Administrative searches are not permitted to investigate "suspicious" items unless they fall into the narrow range of items being specifically searched for, which are those things that are a hazard to aviation. Things that are obviously illegal may properly be referred to law enforcement, but doing so for things that are merely "suspicious" is constitutionally questionable and is exactly what the court is being asked to rule on.
And that's the heart of the problem here! Administrative searches are not permitted to investigate "suspicious" items unless they fall into the narrow range of items being specifically searched for, which are those things that are a hazard to aviation. Things that are obviously illegal may properly be referred to law enforcement, but doing so for things that are merely "suspicious" is constitutionally questionable and is exactly what the court is being asked to rule on.
You make an interesting point.
But, referring something like that to a LEO is not myself or another TSO investigating, it’s a LEO investigating. TSA has not provided me with that type of training or responsibility, so referring it to the proper venue is an appropriate action. For me it "may" be suspicious, but for the LEO it might not be. His/her call.
But, referring something like that to a LEO is not myself or another TSO investigating, it’s a LEO investigating. TSA has not provided me with that type of training or responsibility, so referring it to the proper venue is an appropriate action. For me it "may" be suspicious, but for the LEO it might not be. His/her call.
You're trying to get around the impermssibility of using an administrative seach for general law enforcement purposes by saying "but I'm not investigating" and the LEO saying "but I'm not doing the administrative search". Each of you individually may not be doing anything impermissible, but operating together, you are: you're both "government actors" and the actions of the two of you, working together, have produced a scenario where the fruit of an administrative search is being used to investigate something that's not a hazard to aviation.
It's like two people who are carrying the components of a binary explosive each saying "but I didn't do anything illegal: without the part the other guy's carrying, there's nothing dangerous".
Last edited by RichardKenner; Jul 3, 09 at 6:37 am.
Reason: rework last sentence
The screwy part comes from items, such as cash in excess of $10 k or drugs. As I've posted before, this appears to be confusing for some supervisors and officers. Personally, I don't understand why it should be confusing.
The funny thing is that the memo that generated this confusion came from TSA. They generated the memo and they can issue a memo either clarifying the original memo or rescind it.
Each are independent of each other. The TSO is conducting an administrative search when the purpose of the search is to find a prohibited item or to resolve a cluttered bag which may have a prohibited item inside of it. Key words: prohibited item.
The line is crossed when the TSO uses the administrative search as a guise for a law enforcement search. For example, a police officer suspects that a passenger may be carrying illegal drugs and requests that a TSO conduct a "random search" that specifically targets that passenger. Then it becomes an improper search by the TSO, and any evidence discovered will most likely be thrown out.
The thin line is intent. If the TSO's intent was to look for a prohibited item, then the search is good.
The screwy part comes from items, such as cash in excess of $10 k or drugs. As I've posted before, this appears to be confusing for some supervisors and officers. Personally, I don't understand why it should be confusing.
The key is prohibited items related to airport/aircraft SAFETY.
Any prohibited item that falls outside the purpose of the intent of the search, such as cash or drugs, can NOT be searched for.
but you gots ta know your audience 
