Programs: SW Rapid Rewards, Hilton Honors, Marriott, Avis First
Posts: 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bart
Nice try.
I agree that this is one procedure we could do without. I'm looking forward to the court decision. No one made up the procedure on their own. What's so hard about that, sport?
Ah, but you do selectively enforce the procedure based on your personal beliefs as to what constitutes suspicious activity.
If the man in STL has only been carrying, say, $2,500 in cash, would he have been stopped? If not, why not? If so, why is $2,500 suspicious but $500 isn't?
There is a line that each TSA personally feels crosses the line from legitimate activity to suspicious activity.
I agree that this is one procedure we could do without. I'm looking forward to the court decision. No one made up the procedure on their own.
Well, someone made up the procedure. It might have been a decision of Idiot Hawley or Malevolent Mikey but more likely a meeting of the minds (as if! ) at TSA HQ. Whatever.
IF the court orders TSOs and/or LEOs to quit browbeating passengers over whatever cash they have, then I wouldn't call that a minor adjustment at all. The most significant victory since the breast fondling perhaps.
Well, someone made up the procedure. It might have been a decision of Idiot Hawley or Malevolent Mikey but more likely a meeting of the minds (as if! ) at TSA HQ. Whatever.
IF the court orders TSOs and/or LEOs to quit browbeating passengers over whatever cash they have, then I wouldn't call that a minor adjustment at all. The most significant victory since the breast fondling perhaps.
I suspect that "Francine the Googling Lawyer" will do everything possible to settle this before it makes it to trial. There is no up side for TSA in this matter.
The $10,000 policy is wrong even though this incident did not meet that policies guidelines.
The TSO's at the airport were wrong on how they reacted to the matter.
The LEO's were wrong in how they responded to the matter.
Programs: UA-1k, HH Silver, Giving Tootsie Pops to UA employees, & now a retired hockey goalie
Posts: 10,171
Quote:
Originally Posted by LessO2
Good.
my two hockey pucks says " it's about effing time" and i can't wait for the tsa to try and spin this (let alone eff-up the bsa reporting requirements under oath)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bart
I applaud this. I look forward to the court decision. I don't think we ought to focus our efforts on cash when there are many legitimate reasons for passengers to possess large amounts of cash.
Sorry to disappoint you, Spiff, but this won't bring down DHS or TSA.
Cute comment, though. You score a 5 on the laugh-o-meter!
yet again, a voice of reason
__________________
just my humble opinion but i used to try and stop hockey pucks so what do i know . Nighthawks fans are everywhere
Wrongamundo, big time. It is an established procedure. The question is whether or not there is a valid nexus between this procedure and airport screening. I would not mind it if this procedure were removed from the books.
But make no mistake, this isn't the Earth-shattering court case that some are making it out to be. It will result in a minor adjustment to current screening procedures. That's it.
So your assertion is the SOP dictates a much lower standard for LEO referral than the $10k amount put forth by the TSA website.
I would never ask you to post SSI, but I will ask you to post the name of the publication, title of the chapter and page number that contains this "lower" standard.
Here is my prediction, the TSA will argue that the SOP does NOT allow for the behavior shown in this incident and the TSO acted beyond the scope of his training and accepted practice.
I suspect that "Francine the Googling Lawyer" will do everything possible to settle this before it makes it to trial. There is no up side for TSA in this matter.
The $10,000 policy is wrong even though this incident did not meet that policies guidelines.
The TSO's at the airport were wrong on how they reacted to the matter.
The LEO's were wrong in how they responded to the matter.
I will bet because this guy is a Ron Paul supporter there will be no settlement in this case.
I suspect that "Francine the Googling Lawyer" will do everything possible to settle this before it makes it to trial. There is no up side for TSA in this matter.
The $10,000 policy is wrong even though this incident did not meet that policies guidelines.
The TSO's at the airport were wrong on how they reacted to the matter.
The LEO's were wrong in how they responded to the matter.
Francine will have little impact on how this case is handled. When the government is sued, we have real lawyers handle the case. My friends over in Civil Division/Federal Programs will likely represent Secretary Napolitano.
I will bet because this guy is a Ron Paul supporter there will be no settlement in this case.
The ACLU generally doesn't settle unless there is a mea culpa and corrective action taken. What the lawsuit seeks:
Quote:
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court:
a. Declare that the actions of Defendant’s agents described in this Complaint violated Plaintiff’s rights under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and exceeded her statutory authority;
b. Permanently enjoin Defendant, her officers, agents, servants, employees, and all persons in active concert or participation with her who receive actual notice of the injunction, from authorizing or conducting suspicionless pre-flight searches of passengers or their belongings for items other than weapons and explosives;
c. Award to Plaintiff his reasonable attorneys’ fees, costs, and expenses of litigation; and
d. Order such other relief as the Court may deem just and proper.
So, if DHS (a) admits that they violated the constitution and that they exceeded their statutory authority, (b) agrees not to do it again and takes steps to make sure it doesn't happen again and (c) pays the ACLU's legal fees, then the ACLU will settle. Otherwise, not likely.
I will add that one of the lawyers on this case, Alan Gura, argued before the Supreme Court last year and won -- that was Heller.
It is a threat. Someone could use their lighter, set fire to $5,000, and bring down an airplane.
Well if that's the case those highly flammable seats and cushions and all of the plastic in today's airplanes needs to be removed. /sarcasm
I was seriously trying to get Bart to followup on his earlier comments. It really did sound like he was implying that some sort of policy is out there calling for investigation of less than $10,000 cash by TSO's.
It is a threat. Someone could use their lighter, set fire to $5,000, and bring down an airplane.
Oh, now I understand "TSA Logic™"[sic]. It is the quantity of green 75% cotton 25% linen fiber pieces that is a threat to aviation, not their face value. By TSA Logic™[sic], possession of 5000 $1 bills is obviously 100 times more dangerous than possession of 50 $100 bills due to their fire hazard. Thanks for clearing that up, I feel so much safer now.
I'll be sure to only carry large bills in the future. Of course, fewer large bills are harder for the TSO to find, but I'll just have to risk becoming an "Artful Concealment" statistic on the TSA Weekly Body Count as my Layer of Contribution to Civil Aviation Safety.
__________________
J. Edgar Hoover. Pg. 203 A Study of Communism: "Travel: Internal passports are required for identification and travel."
I was seriously trying to get Bart to followup on his earlier comments. It really did sound like he was implying that some sort of policy is out there calling for investigation of less than $10,000 cash by TSO's.
If true that is really troubling.
I don't want to put words in Bart's mouth, but I think what he was getting at is that large amounts of cash trigger the TSA search/seizure-- but that in order to figure out that $4,700 is not $14,700 the TSA has to count it. A large stack of bills could have lots of $10 or $20 notes, or it could have $50 and $100 notes. Have to count it to know if it is more than $10,000. That's all I can think of. Such a case just points out how stupid this is. The question you seem to pose is, why, after it was discovered that it was less than $10,000.01 (as in this case) the TSA, with the help of the police, continued the search/seizure. I have no answer for that.
The above is just my take on the exchange. Feel free to correct me if I am wrong.
I don't want to put words in Bart's mouth, but I think what he was getting at is that large amounts of cash trigger the TSA search/seizure-- but that in order to figure out that $4,700 is not $14,700 the TSA has to count it. A large stack of bills could have lots of $10 or $20 notes, or it could have $50 and $100 notes. Have to count it to know if it is more than $10,000. That's all I can think of. Such a case just points out how stupid this is. The question you seem to pose is, why, after it was discovered that it was less than $10,000.01 (as in this case) the TSA, with the help of the police, continued the search/seizure. I have no answer for that.
The above is just my take on the exchange. Feel free to correct me if I am wrong.
--Ari
I'd venture a quick guess that it became a pi$$ing contest. It just escalated due to attitude, on both sides. I could be mistaken, as well. It is a case that IMHO deserves to be argued in court.
__________________
"Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness." Mark Twain
for recording the incident.
) at TSA HQ. Whatever.
. Nighthawks fans are everywhere
