Call to arms.
#121
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: boca raton, florida
Posts: 621
Its not a threat. And yes, you can travel all over the US with as much as you like. Its when one is traveling outside of the US that the concerns start. One must declare sums of cash equal to or larger than $10,000 with Customs. If you have done so then there is no problem.
So what is the policy du jour?
#122
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 16,050
Its not a threat. And yes, you can travel all over the US with as much as you like. Its when one is traveling outside of the US that the concerns start. One must declare sums of cash equal to or larger than $10,000 with Customs. If you have done so then there is no problem.
#124
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: DFW
Posts: 28,114
Its not a threat. And yes, you can travel all over the US with as much as you like. Its when one is traveling outside of the US that the concerns start. One must declare sums of cash equal to or larger than $10,000 with Customs. If you have done so then there is no problem.
Seems that TSA even agreed with a court to stop looking for cash.
It is clear that TSA cannot find WEI yet they continue doing things that improve aviation security one iota.
#125
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 3,657
Seriously ... the only source of data on the efficacy of TSA's use of WBIs is, naturally, going to have to come from the TSA itself. That makes you (slightly) more likely than members of the general public to have access to that data.
#126
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 3,657
No Phil. No. Intent is the point. I intentionally search for prohibited items, I do not intentionally search for drugs. Drugs are not the TSA’s concern, just as child abuse is not a citizens concern, unless they are mandated to report it if suspected. I am mandated to report the finding of anything I suspect to be an illegal substance.
I'm wondering how far "anything you suspect to be illegal" really goes. Is it really completely at your discretion? Or have you been given specific guidance regarding certain (suspected) illegal items which, if incidentally found, must be reported? If the latter is true, then you are, in a way, intentionally looking for those items --- even if only in the context of a legal administrative search.
#127
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: USA
Posts: 1,439
Ron, I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you're misunderstanding me and not being intentionally obtuse. To clarify: I'm not specifically discussing your game of fetch that comes after one of your associates sees something interesting. I'm talking about the entire search, beginning with one of you opening a bag or looking inside with an X-ray machine, and ending when you -- TSA staff -- stop examining the bag.
When you -- meaning TSA airport passenger- and bag-searching staff -- search someone's bag, you will "intend" to look for weapons, explosives, and incendiaries, but while you're doing so, you'll also keep an eye out for any of several other things, including drugs, wads of cash, and evidence of credit card fraud or immigrations violations, right? You'll ignore most everything in those bags, but if you find weapons, explosives, incendiaries, drugs, or any of several other things, then you'll take action, right?
When you checkpoint staffers find something that looks to you like illegal drugs, your next step will be exactly the same as it would be if you'd found something that looked like a weapon, right? If while "intending to" search for weapons, explosives, and incendiaries, you find weapons, explosives, incendiaries, drugs, or any of several other things, then you'll stop what you're doing and call a supervisor, right?
It would take some serious mental gymnastics to consider that what you and your associates do is a search for weapons, explosives, and incendiaries, and not a search for drugs, credit card fraud, immigrations violations, and likely a number of other possible indications of wrongdoing.
When you -- meaning TSA airport passenger- and bag-searching staff -- search someone's bag, you will "intend" to look for weapons, explosives, and incendiaries, but while you're doing so, you'll also keep an eye out for any of several other things, including drugs, wads of cash, and evidence of credit card fraud or immigrations violations, right? You'll ignore most everything in those bags, but if you find weapons, explosives, incendiaries, drugs, or any of several other things, then you'll take action, right?
When you checkpoint staffers find something that looks to you like illegal drugs, your next step will be exactly the same as it would be if you'd found something that looked like a weapon, right? If while "intending to" search for weapons, explosives, and incendiaries, you find weapons, explosives, incendiaries, drugs, or any of several other things, then you'll stop what you're doing and call a supervisor, right?
It would take some serious mental gymnastics to consider that what you and your associates do is a search for weapons, explosives, and incendiaries, and not a search for drugs, credit card fraud, immigrations violations, and likely a number of other possible indications of wrongdoing.
#128
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Greensboro
Programs: TSA
Posts: 2,424
Ron, I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you're misunderstanding me and not being intentionally obtuse. To clarify: I'm not specifically discussing your game of fetch that comes after one of your associates sees something interesting. I'm talking about the entire search, beginning with one of you opening a bag or looking inside with an X-ray machine, and ending when you -- TSA staff -- stop examining the bag.
When you -- meaning TSA airport passenger- and bag-searching staff -- search someone's bag, you will "intend" to look for weapons, explosives, and incendiaries, but while you're doing so, you'll also keep an eye out for any of several other things, including drugs, wads of cash, and evidence of credit card fraud or immigrations violations, right? You'll ignore most everything in those bags, but if you find weapons, explosives, incendiaries, drugs, or any of several other things, then you'll take action, right?
When you checkpoint staffers find something that looks to you like illegal drugs, your next step will be exactly the same as it would be if you'd found something that looked like a weapon, right? If while "intending to" search for weapons, explosives, and incendiaries, you find weapons, explosives, incendiaries, drugs, or any of several other things, then you'll stop what you're doing and call a supervisor, right?
It would take some serious mental gymnastics to consider that what you and your associates do is a search for weapons, explosives, and incendiaries, and not a search for drugs, credit card fraud, immigrations violations, and likely a number of other possible indications of wrongdoing.
When you -- meaning TSA airport passenger- and bag-searching staff -- search someone's bag, you will "intend" to look for weapons, explosives, and incendiaries, but while you're doing so, you'll also keep an eye out for any of several other things, including drugs, wads of cash, and evidence of credit card fraud or immigrations violations, right? You'll ignore most everything in those bags, but if you find weapons, explosives, incendiaries, drugs, or any of several other things, then you'll take action, right?
When you checkpoint staffers find something that looks to you like illegal drugs, your next step will be exactly the same as it would be if you'd found something that looked like a weapon, right? If while "intending to" search for weapons, explosives, and incendiaries, you find weapons, explosives, incendiaries, drugs, or any of several other things, then you'll stop what you're doing and call a supervisor, right?
It would take some serious mental gymnastics to consider that what you and your associates do is a search for weapons, explosives, and incendiaries, and not a search for drugs, credit card fraud, immigrations violations, and likely a number of other possible indications of wrongdoing.
#129
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 57,604
Stroud testified that she opened the envelopes to look for contraband evidencing criminal wrongdoing, not to detect prohibited
items within the envelopes.
items within the envelopes.
#130
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Greensboro
Programs: TSA
Posts: 2,424
Stroud (according to the testimony and articles I have read) was wrong. The search is supposed to be for threat or possible threat items. Only if you find something in the course of trying to clear the threat do you move up the chain to the STSO.
#131
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: boca raton, florida
Posts: 621
And $4700 in cash/checks (in STL) would be which category of weapons/explosives/pyro?
#132
Suspended
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 4,953
However, how many of your fellow screeners think the way Stroud did - that they are supposed to search for anything and everything? You have to admit that a lot of your screeners are not too terribly swift upstairs and in all likelihood can't discern procedure as it is supposed to be vs. what they think it is (or would like it to be).
#133
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Greensboro
Programs: TSA
Posts: 2,424
I have not read the statements in this case (at least not the statements of the TSO and LEO involved), and will say that the TSOs language and statements were a case of not following correct procedures, however - I only have the publicized account of the person that had the cash. That means I am unable to make an informed statement on the situation. If the money was (as described) in a lockbox and had organic appearance on the Xray, then a clearing of the container for possible threats would be warranted.
#134
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Greensboro
Programs: TSA
Posts: 2,424
However, how many of your fellow screeners think the way Stroud did - that they are supposed to search for anything and everything? You have to admit that a lot of your screeners are not too terribly swift upstairs and in all likelihood can't discern procedure as it is supposed to be vs. what they think it is (or would like it to be).
#135
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: boca raton, florida
Posts: 621
I have not read the statements in this case (at least not the statements of the TSO and LEO involved), and will say that the TSOs language and statements were a case of not following correct procedures, however - I only have the publicized account of the person that had the cash. That means I am unable to make an informed statement on the situation. If the money was (as described) in a lockbox and had organic appearance on the Xray, then a clearing of the container for possible threats would be warranted.
And how much of threat is a house phone number that it needs to be divulged? Your brethren lead screener Dominic Grieto at Austin (AUS) was insistent last October 18th that he could not "release me" until I told him my house phone number for an incident report that he wanted to write? He was wrong and I enjoyed him trying.