Go Back   FlyerTalk Forums > Travel&Dining > Travel Safety/Security > Practical Travel Safety Issues
Sign in using an external account

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Jan 3, 09, 7:46 pm   #61
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: NYC
Posts: 60,364
Quote:
Originally Posted by SgtScott31 View Post
Not that it's enforced greatly, but many states make it unlawful to carry prescription meds in anything but the containers they were issued in. I wouldn't necessarily call it a "heap 'o trouble," but yes, out on the street you can be arrested for it.
Neither melatonin nor vitamins are prescription drugs. As that is what the OP is noting that they are carrying I'd be very surprised if they found themselves arrested for such. But I guess the details of what actual pills are being carried are less important to you, huh?

Quote:
Originally Posted by SgtScott31 View Post
By policy, he is supposed to report suspicious items discovered during an administrative (and consensual) search.
I'm still trying to figure out why $10K in cash is suspicious, particularly to the TSOs. I understand compelling the TSOs to report things like drugs to a LEO, even if I don't think they should actually be searching bags looking for them specifically and I think that they are more than not. But carrying cash is something that people do from time to time. The retort you seem to come back with frequently is that it is obvious when someone shouldn't have lots of cash on them so you know they're criminals. But that doesn't explain how the TSOs could possibly know or be trained as such, nor why something that is not actually criminal in any way is considered suspect by anyone.
__________________
Travel Tales | Cash Back on Booking
Twitter | Tools |
sbm12 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 3, 09, 7:46 pm   #62
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Florida
Posts: 3,006
Quote:
Originally Posted by icurhere2 View Post
A. Over $10K must be reported.
B. If you work at the location in your profile, Canada and Mexico would both be non-stop international destinations (add connections and one can travel anywhere).
A. By whose authority must the $10+ be reported and to whom?
Trollkiller is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 3, 09, 8:25 pm   #63
KTW
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: St. Lucie West,FL/Las Vegas,NV
Posts: 277
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spiff View Post
What are you going to do, put the beat down on Johnny Law?

The Man wants your money, The Man's going to take it. If you're lucky, you'll get a receipt.
Like I said it wasn't a "what if" post. I simply stated I just don't see any "normal" individual carrying $10k+ or whatever not doing ANYTHING to stop ANYONE from taking their hard earned money. You don't hear about these situations, so I doubt the seizures happen even 1% as much as we seem to hear about.....Assuming I am incorrect on all counts; everyone is a criminal and or a coward. Their can't be another selection.....End of thread for me.
__________________
Never Underestimate The Importance Of Innocence To The Innocent Man
KTW is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 3, 09, 8:36 pm   #64
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Florida
Posts: 3,006
I have been giving this issue a lot of thought and research. I think what bugs me the most is not the fact that if you are carrying large sums of money a LEO may become involved but the fact that TSOs are being told that greater than $10k IS contraband and they "should" refer you to a LEO according to OD-400-54-2.

Quote:
When TSA discovers contraband during the screening process that is not a TSA Prohibited Item, the matter should be referred to the local Law Enforcement Officers as appropriate. An Enforcement Investigative Report should not be initiated.

Examples of such contraband include:

- Illegal Drugs
- Drug Paraphernalia
- Large Amounts of Cash(10,000.00)
I think we all understand and agree that if a TSO (or anyone) sees something that constitutes a serious crime (felony) they must report it. If they don't they will be guilty of misprision of a felony, but does that extend to being compelled to report something that is legal but claimed to be contraband?

I have spent a good amount of time pondering this issue.

If a TSO referred a passenger to a LEO because the TSO felt the amount of money being carried was suspicious, I would be more forgiving. After all as good citizens we should report suspicious activity to the authorities.

If I see someone walking from a house carrying a TV and in my mind this is suspicious I should report it. If my life were run by the TSA I would compelled to report ANYONE carrying a TV even if I can see the delivery truck in the driveway.

$10k+ would be suspicious in some circumstances and not in others. If I am carrying $10k+ that would be suspicious, if Bill Gates were carrying $10k+ it would be pocket change.

In summary I really don't have a problem with a TSO having a REASONABLE suspicion about a large sum of money and involving a LEO, I have a huge problem with the TSA lying to the TSOs about $10k+ being contraband and forcing them to involve a LEO when there is NO reasonable suspicion.
Trollkiller is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 4, 09, 2:59 am   #65
Ari
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 10,192
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flaflyer View Post
They arrest a local drug dealer and confiscate $200,000. They make a "procedural mistake regarding evidence" on the arrest and the dealer does not get convicted because the police do not want him convicted. They want him back on the street. Six months later, they pop him again and keep another $200,000. The dealer is happy, being out of jail and in business. The "loss due to stolen cash" is a cost of doing business no more than if he was bribing the cops. The cops get to say "We're not getting bribed", but the drug money ends up in their pocket just the same. What's the difference? None that I can see.
This is a cute story.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SgtScott31 View Post
You, Ari and others still want to ignore the fact that this type of action has been going on for years, and it will continue. TSA is just a scapegoat because the checkpoints are currently under their control rather than the FAA. Like I said before, I don't recall any forums bashing FAA and/or the contract security companies who were doing the exact same thing long before TSA came along. It's just easier to go after them because of the dislike by you and others here at FT.
While the TSA is an easy target both here on FT and in general, there are two major distinctions between then and now:

1) When the government gets involved, everyone has elevated responsibilities. Acme Security Screening Inc and the TSA are in two very different legal positions. The TSA is accountable in so many more ways than a private company would be. But it does go both ways-- they get federal benefits! Also, killing them is a federal crime.

2) Under the TSA, the option to withdraw consent during the (administrative) search was eliminated. I understand the security rationale for such a rule, but I think the result needs to be "blinders" on the TSA when it comes to things that aren't per se illegal. Otherwise the temptation is just too great-- not for the individual TSO-- but for more and more dragnet-type of procedures to be added. This is only one security directive.

While each of those distinctions seems minor, those are both major distinctions in the legal arena. I have not ignored the issue.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SgtScott31 View Post
Not that it's enforced greatly, but many states make it unlawful to carry prescription meds in anything but the containers they were issued in. I wouldn't necessarily call it a "heap 'o trouble," but yes, out on the street you can be arrested for it.
I believe most (if not all) of such laws apply only to controlled substances, a small fraction of all prescriptions filled.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SgtScott31 View Post
By policy, he is supposed to report suspicious items discovered during an administrative (and consensual) search. Again, whether you believe the policy is bologne is another question. Take that up with the suits in DC, but as far as the TSO, they're doing what they were told. You guys are wanting to punish the messenger.
The rule doesn't ask them to report suspicious items-- it asks them to report over $10k in cash irrespective of any suspicious nature. Is over $10k in cash now per se suspicious?

As far as punishing the messenger, that would never happen around here.
Ari is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 4, 09, 5:48 am   #66
Suspended
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 4,952
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trollkiller View Post
I have been giving this issue a lot of thought and research. I think what bugs me the most is not the fact that if you are carrying large sums of money a LEO may become involved but the fact that TSOs are being told that greater than $10k IS contraband and they "should" refer you to a LEO according to OD-400-54-2.

I think we all understand and agree that if a TSO (or anyone) sees something that constitutes a serious crime (felony) they must report it. If they don't they will be guilty of misprision of a felony, but does that extend to being compelled to report something that is legal but claimed to be contraband?

I have spent a good amount of time pondering this issue.

If a TSO referred a passenger to a LEO because the TSO felt the amount of money being carried was suspicious, I would be more forgiving. After all as good citizens we should report suspicious activity to the authorities.

If I see someone walking from a house carrying a TV and in my mind this is suspicious I should report it. If my life were run by the TSA I would compelled to report ANYONE carrying a TV even if I can see the delivery truck in the driveway.

$10k+ would be suspicious in some circumstances and not in others. If I am carrying $10k+ that would be suspicious, if Bill Gates were carrying $10k+ it would be pocket change.

In summary I really don't have a problem with a TSO having a REASONABLE suspicion about a large sum of money and involving a LEO, I have a huge problem with the TSA lying to the TSOs about $10k+ being contraband and forcing them to involve a LEO when there is NO reasonable suspicion.
Respectfully, Trollkiller, I disagree because most screeners do not have the capacity to make a determination of "reasonable suspicion."

If it is not illegal to carry >$10,000 in country, then the TSA has no business referring anyone to a LEO. I don't care if the money or instrument is in a wallet, tucked into a bra, hidden in the bottom of a shoe - it is none of the TSA's business.
doober is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 4, 09, 8:10 am   #67
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Nashville, TN
Posts: 355
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trollkiller View Post
Sorry dude you are judged by the company you keep. There are thousands of cases involving crooked cops and crooked agencies. You know as well as I do that a good portion of seizure cases are weak at best and fraud at worst.
A fraction of a percent that you seem to be exaggerating just to support your cause here. In every seizure case I have ever been involved in (going on 7 years), there has never been an ounce of doubt in my mind that the money was illegally obtained and being carried to go buy drugs. There are other factors at play aside from just the money itself, but I care not to divulge them here.

Quote:
The more you claim this hogwash is consensual, the more your already minimal stature diminshes. Keep kidding yourself. I do not ever recollect giving explicit consent for the silliness that passes for a search at the typical airport check-point... Would seem that the recipients of a search would have to explicitly give consent in order for the search to be consensual.
Last I checked, walking into the checkpoint IS consenting to adhere to screening procedures to board an aircraft. Call it what you want, but no one is twisting your arm to have you and your belongings searched. It seems that the US Justices agree on this as well. I guess they're just supporting "hogwash."

Quote:
While the TSA is an easy target both here on FT and in general, there are two major distinctions between then and now:

1) When the government gets involved, everyone has elevated responsibilities. Acme Security Screening Inc and the TSA are in two very different legal positions. The TSA is accountable in so many more ways than a private company would be. But it does go both ways-- they get federal benefits! Also, killing them is a federal crime.

2) Under the TSA, the option to withdraw consent during the (administrative) search was eliminated. I understand the security rationale for such a rule, but I think the result needs to be "blinders" on the TSA when it comes to things that aren't per se illegal. Otherwise the temptation is just too great-- not for the individual TSO-- but for more and more dragnet-type of procedures to be added. This is only one security directive.

While each of those distinctions seems minor, those are both major distinctions in the legal arena. I have not ignored the issue.

I disagree. While it is now a federal agency conducting the screening, those before the TSA were required to screen passengers according to federal law (per FAA). It was still federal rule that required passengers be screened and things to go reported should contraband be found during the screening process by contract employees. Although the Aukai ruling occurred under TSA's time, I think the outcome would have been the same would it have been contract security who discovered the drugs in Aukai's pocket(s). Whether TSA or contract doing the screening, it is TSA/DHS policies that the screeners must adhere to. The contract companies do not make up seperate (non-governmental) policies to enforce at federally-mandated checkpoints.

Quote:
The retort you seem to come back with frequently is that it is obvious when someone shouldn't have lots of cash on them so you know they're criminals. But that doesn't explain how the TSOs could possibly know or be trained as such, nor why something that is not actually criminal in any way is considered suspect by anyone.
TSOs simply call the on-scene LEO to the money. From my training and experience dealing with interdiction, it only takes a couple of minutes (with other factors at play aside from the money) to figure out if this person is carrying his own money, or someone else's to buy the drugs. Like I mentioned before, there are far more people who carry cash who are questioned very little who come through the security checkpoint.

Quote:
Isn't there someone taking pictures at your airport within your imagined one minute check-point response zone?
Still relishing on the past are we? Imagined one minute response? Feel free to cause a problem at the checkpoint at BNA and time the LE response. I would be glad to provide you lunch at one of our restaurants if you prove me wrong.
SgtScott31 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 4, 09, 9:31 am   #68
Suspended
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: DFW
Posts: 9,077
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trollkiller View Post
I have been giving this issue a lot of thought and research. I think what bugs me the most is not the fact that if you are carrying large sums of money a LEO may become involved but the fact that TSOs are being told that greater than $10k IS contraband and they "should" refer you to a LEO according to OD-400-54-2.



I think we all understand and agree that if a TSO (or anyone) sees something that constitutes a serious crime (felony) they must report it. If they don't they will be guilty of misprision of a felony, but does that extend to being compelled to report something that is legal but claimed to be contraband?

I have spent a good amount of time pondering this issue.

If a TSO referred a passenger to a LEO because the TSO felt the amount of money being carried was suspicious, I would be more forgiving. After all as good citizens we should report suspicious activity to the authorities.

If I see someone walking from a house carrying a TV and in my mind this is suspicious I should report it. If my life were run by the TSA I would compelled to report ANYONE carrying a TV even if I can see the delivery truck in the driveway.

$10k+ would be suspicious in some circumstances and not in others. If I am carrying $10k+ that would be suspicious, if Bill Gates were carrying $10k+ it would be pocket change.

In summary I really don't have a problem with a TSO having a REASONABLE suspicion about a large sum of money and involving a LEO, I have a huge problem with the TSA lying to the TSOs about $10k+ being contraband and forcing them to involve a LEO when there is NO reasonable suspicion.
TK, I agree with you up to a point. If a person was found to have money taped to their body I would be curious as to why. More investigation would be on order. I think that is what you were getting at. However, if a person was found to have a large amount of money in their briefcase or such I don't think it is any business of TSA or Police as to why barring some other indicator of wrong doing.

TSA has enough on its plate without getting into a dragnet checkpoint. And by all indications aren't very good at what they should be doing! Why complicate the issue with make work problems.

The real problem I have is that $10K cash is contraband as determined by TSA OD-400-54-2 . I believe that the directive stating such is faulty.
Boggie Dog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 4, 09, 9:40 am   #69
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: BOS and vicinity
Programs: UA 2P, formerly 1P
Posts: 3,648
Quote:
Originally Posted by SgtScott31 View Post
Last I checked, walking into the checkpoint IS consenting to adhere to screening procedures to board an aircraft. Call it what you want, but no one is twisting your arm to have you and your belongings searched. It seems that the US Justices agree on this as well. I guess they're just supporting "hogwash."
A lot of us need to fly commercial to keep our jobs, see our families, etc. From that point of view, a TSA checkpoint is no more "consensual" that if the government put up a checkpoint outside my home's front door or on the commuter rail someone takes to work (and they're doing that too). Sure, you could say nobody is twisting my arm to leave my house, but it's not practical or realistic to avoid the checkpoint.

IANAL, but IMO the entire doctrine of "implied consent" is hogwash. There should be no implied consent. You either explicitly consent or you don't. And the checkpoints/dragnets the government seems to like putting up in our travel infrastructure (not just planes, but trains too, and who knows what's next) are not consensual searches, they are forced administrative (and effectively criminal too) searches (unfortunately) required to exercise our right to free movement.

If the government really wants "implied consent" administrative searches, they need to use the blinders listed in a previous post--anything outside the scope of their mandate that is not an immediate threat and not an obvious felony should be ignored. See a human head, report it. See a bunch of cash, white powder, glass pipes, or nude photos of someone who might be 19 or might be 17, ignore it.
studentff is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 4, 09, 10:18 am   #70
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Nashville, TN
Posts: 355
Quote:
Originally Posted by studentff View Post
A lot of us need to fly commercial to keep our jobs, see our families, etc. From that point of view, a TSA checkpoint is no more "consensual" that if the government put up a checkpoint outside my home's front door or on the commuter rail someone takes to work (and they're doing that too). Sure, you could say nobody is twisting my arm to leave my house, but it's not practical or realistic to avoid the checkpoint.

IANAL, but IMO the entire doctrine of "implied consent" is hogwash. There should be no implied consent. You either explicitly consent or you don't. And the checkpoints/dragnets the government seems to like putting up in our travel infrastructure (not just planes, but trains too, and who knows what's next) are not consensual searches, they are forced administrative (and effectively criminal too) searches (unfortunately) required to exercise our right to free movement.

If the government really wants "implied consent" administrative searches, they need to use the blinders listed in a previous post--anything outside the scope of their mandate that is not an immediate threat and not an obvious felony should be ignored. See a human head, report it. See a bunch of cash, white powder, glass pipes, or nude photos of someone who might be 19 or might be 17, ignore it.
Let's just release all of it and let the criminals travel abroad as fast as they can on aircraft without any fear of getting caught with their tools. Rapists, pornographers, drug smuggling murderers, what's the big deal? As long as you can get to your vacationing spot in Florida without being "harassed," it doesn't matter now does it?
SgtScott31 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 4, 09, 11:07 am   #71
Moderator: Information Desk, Travel Safety/Security forum & Women Travelers
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: ATL
Programs: DL, AA
Posts: 5,871
Quote:
Originally Posted by SgtScott31 View Post
As long as you can get to your vacationing spot in Florida without being "harassed," it doesn't matter now does it?
OK... I try to stay out of these debates. However, this attitude just steams me. Most FFs are not on vacation. They are trying to do their job; same as you. Their jobs just happen to require they pass through airport security checkpoints on a regular basis. (And keep in mind that exceptions are made for most people who need to regularly access the airport secure area... making it seem "the rules" only apply to those who are actually paying to fly. Just a side Q: How often do you have to pass through the checkpoint? Empty pockets; take off jacket; remove shoes; etc. Weekly? Daily? Once a year on vacation?)

I suspect if the US implemented automotive checkpoints similar to those at the US/Mexican border at the entrance to every US interstate highway, you would see similar complaints from truckers that we have here on FT regarding airport checkpoints. City dwellers and infrequent long-haul drivers probably wouldn't care as much. It's not a big deal - except to those most affected.

In the case of airport security checkpoints, FTers tend to be the most vocal complainers - because they are the most inconvenienced. While some of the arguments I read here are over the top - on both sides - I think we can at least try to understand the other point of view.

OK... now back on topic. Cash /= Contraband. Or does it?

I think if we're going to implement customs checks at the airport, they should be done by Customs... and only for those flyers getting on or off an international flight.
scoow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 4, 09, 11:31 am   #72
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Trinacria
Programs: United Plat, AA (no more status), Southwest RR, Alitalia MM, Hilton gold, Accor something or other
Posts: 2,544
Quote:
Originally Posted by SgtScott31 View Post
Let's just release all of it and let the criminals travel abroad as fast as they can on aircraft without any fear of getting caught with their tools. Rapists, pornographers, drug smuggling murderers, what's the big deal? As long as you can get to your vacationing spot in Florida without being "harassed," it doesn't matter now does it?
How many rapists and murderers, and even pornographers have been caught at checkpoints these days. I presume you mean child pornographers, who are likely to be caught be customs agents-as they should be-looking at electronic devices. They are not caught passing through a check point where I don't believe they turn the computers on and search photos-yet-but it seems you might advocate that as well, if we follow your money theory (. To bad OJ didn't try to fly after the Goldman murder it seems the TSA would have saved the day!

The inane fecklessness of TSA justification can only go so far. The sky was not falling before, it is not falling now. Unless you read TSA press releases...


Ciao,
FH
__________________
(AP) The US Census Bureau found:The nation's fastest-growing city by number of people was Houston, which gained 138,000 people between 2012 & 2013.
FlyingHoustonian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 4, 09, 11:57 am   #73
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: DCA / WAS
Programs: DL 2+ million/PM, YX, Marriott Plt, *wood gold, HHonors, CO Plt, UA, AA EXP, WN, AGR
Posts: 9,380
Quote:
Originally Posted by SgtScott31 View Post
Quote:
Hmmm - I carry melatonin and some vitamins fairly frequently on trips. They're in baggies. Sometimes they're buried in an available pocket inside my bag. Guess I can end up in a heap 'o trouble?
Not that it's enforced greatly, but many states make it unlawful to carry prescription meds in anything but the containers they were issued in. I wouldn't necessarily call it a "heap 'o trouble," but yes, out on the street you can be arrested for it.
I hope you're not the one that has to make the determination. Neither melatonin (a dietary supplement) nor vitamins are prescription meds.

If I hear you correctly, the presumption would be made by an investigating officer that the pills are drugs or contraband until I proved otherwise. At the minimum, it would mean that I'm detained (and miss my flight(s) ) while y'all spend time figuring it out. At the worst, I'll face a false accusation and have to prove myself in court. In other words, I am faced with a "penalty" for flying with perfectly legal substances. That, my friend, is precisely what's wrong with the current process.

By the way, it's pretty a pretty common technique amongst certain law enforcement organizations to force someone to "pay" even if the law-enforcer can't prove anything illegal. It's done to "send a message". And yes, I have personal knowledge of that being done.....
Global_Hi_Flyer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 4, 09, 12:01 pm   #74
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by SgtScott31 View Post
Let's just release all of it and let the criminals travel abroad as fast as they can on aircraft without any fear of getting caught with their tools. Rapists, pornographers, drug smuggling murderers, what's the big deal? As long as you can get to your vacationing spot in Florida without being "harassed," it doesn't matter now does it?
Please share your "knowledge" and enlighten us all as to the actual numbers of Rapists pornographers drug smuggling murderers arrested charged and convicted as a result of TSA calling over a LEO at Nashville over say the last 3 years. Thank you in advance. Their names would be useful as well. They are matters of public record after all.
collettex21 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 4, 09, 12:11 pm   #75
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: FLL/YYZ/TPE
Programs: CO Platinum 1K, SPG Platinum, Hyatt Platinum, National Executive Elite, Platinum TSA Hater
Posts: 26,796
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trollkiller View Post
I have been giving this issue a lot of thought and research. I think what bugs me the most is not the fact that if you are carrying large sums of money a LEO may become involved but the fact that TSOs are being told that greater than $10k IS contraband and they "should" refer you to a LEO according to OD-400-54-2.
Cash over 10K is officially being defined as contraband?????

Quote:
I think we all understand and agree that if a TSO (or anyone) sees something that constitutes a serious crime (felony) they must report it. If they don't they will be guilty of misprision of a felony, but does that extend to being compelled to report something that is legal but claimed to be contraband?
They should not be reporting anything which is unrelated to aviation security. Period.

Quote:
If a TSO referred a passenger to a LEO because the TSO felt the amount of money being carried was suspicious, I would be more forgiving. After all as good citizens we should report suspicious activity to the authorities.
A good citizen minds his own business and keeps his mouth shut unless they see a crime where someone will be hurt or there is property loss/damage.

Quote:
If I see someone walking from a house carrying a TV and in my mind this is suspicious I should report it. If my life were run by the TSA I would compelled to report ANYONE carrying a TV even if I can see the delivery truck in the driveway.

$10k+ would be suspicious in some circumstances and not in others. If I am carrying $10k+ that would be suspicious, if Bill Gates were carrying $10k+ it would be pocket change.
Please. Carrying cash is not suspicious. I'll write it again. Carrying cash is not suspicious. It doesn't matter who you are.

Quote:
In summary I really don't have a problem with a TSO having a REASONABLE suspicion about a large sum of money and involving a LEO,....
I have a huge problem with it.
__________________
Try Global Elite for discounted luxury travel - www.globalelite.us
bocastephen is offline   Reply With Quote
 
 
Reply

Bookmarks


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 5:53 am.




SEO by vBSEO ©2011, Crawlability, Inc.