onlyairfare

I have that question still also. And what pmocek asked: How exactly is that cash discovered?

When I have undergone a secondary search, the TSO has appropriately seemed to be looking to identify an object seen on the screen, or doing a "random" search because of SSSS on my boarding pass, at which point the main interest still seems to be illegal weapons, not counting my cash. I'd be very concerned (about potential theft) and watch closely if they removed cash from my wallet to count it, but I haven't seen this happen.

As Ari points out, it is not illegal to take cash out of my bank account here on the west coast to use, say, to pay the moving company or closing costs on a newly purchased home in my new location on the east coast. Both situations often require cash or cash equivalent, and can easily top $10,000. I'd carry the cash with me, likely divided in several locations which might include a money belt or tucked into my bra.

No drugs or illegal intent involved, just someone moving to a new job/home out of state. Or paying cash for a sex change, or loaning money to a relative who needs to settle a home repair bill, all of which are legal. Why the TSA dragnet?

Superguy

The problem here is that the TSO is NOT acting as a citizen here. They are acting as a government actor. There is a BIG difference here.

I'll give you a brief example.

When I worked for the government, part of my job was querying databases. We were not permitted to query on any US or other protected person. We were not permitted to even query ourselves. Why? Because in doing so, we were working as a government actor and we would be violating our own 4th amendment rights.

I can go home and Google myself and do any other search online about me and that's perfectly fine. I could not do that legally at work.

TSO's aren't any different. When they put on that uniform and report for work, they are agents of the government ... that citizenship takes a back seat. If such exemptions were in place, it'd allow cops and other law enforcement to skirt laws designed to protect us because they weren't acting as LEOs ... they were acting as citizens.

This is being constantly abused. TSA's taking a limited consent search for administrative purpose and elevating it to a criminal search, turning it into essentially a warrantless (and arguably illegal) search by the government. Every court case I've seen cited recently with regards to airports cites terrorism for the allowing the search ... not actual law. And with respect to the infrequency of terrorism in this country, I also think it's arguable that it's not really a real reason to determine whether a search is reasonable or not as anyone can argue ANYTHING is reasonable to prevent terrorism.

I'd have less of an issue if the administrative search were used as a basis for getting a warrant rather than making the handoff to a criminal search. As it stands now, the "limited" search is being used as a springboard to search bags an LEO would have to get a warrant to search.

Super

Superguy

Just because TSA is an arm of the government doesn't give it the same powers of LE and the ability to do what it wants (despite what it thinks).

That's like saying someone working for Social Security has the same powers as a TSO, FBI Agent, etc, simply because they work for an arm of the government.

Doesn't work that way.

Super

Top Tier

Fair enough.

And please remember if I disagree with something you wrote, it is the idea I am attacking and not you personally or LE in general.

bfetch

This is the crux of the argument/back & forth/whatever you want to call with between SgtScott and everyone else: we have different definitions of contraband.

SgtScott is using both the TSA's & an LEO's definition of contraband, which in the environs of an airport is valid (due to Dweedle-Dum's statement to the fact from 2005), however everyone else is attempting to argue the point that cash in excess of $10k is NOT contraband outside the airport.

This distinction is important since whether the item is or is not, it's ultimate forefiture or continued possession is heavily dependent upon the location of where it's discovered (if it should have been in the first place - but we won't go there just yet).

So, in the case of the airport, we have a non-LE arm of the government declaring something as contraband that the courts have previously not declared as such. And here is where we have the collision of beliefs in the scope/depth/breadth of administrative searches resulting in LEO enforcement of criminal violations (as opposed to civil I believe - but IANAL).

Bring a knife to the airport in your bag that's found via the adminstrative search (AS) and you'll receive a civil fine (I think) but not a criminal fine - unless the LEO called over determines you are worth arresting (outstanding warrants, blah, blah, blah...)
Bring $10k cash to the airport that's found via the same type of AS and you'll possibly be detained by an LEO with potential forefiture of the money.
Bring a pipe to the airport that's found via an AS and you'll be detained by an LEO with a possible arrest.
Bring a firearm to the airport that's found via an AS, not only will you receive the civil fine for attempting to bring a restricted (read contraband) item into a sterile area (per the TSA's regulations) but then depending upon local ordinances you could then be detained and arrested for illegal possession of said firearm by the LEO.

4 situations (all have been witnessed/seen/heard about in the media) that involve both the TSA (a non-law enforcement agency) & local police each with 4 potential outcomes that always involve detention but not necessarily criminal charges.

However 2 of them (IMHO) should never be considered by the TSA for 'escalation' (my term here) to an LEO's attention - the pipe & cash.

Again, my opinion here: the cash is legal to carry (however not smart it might be) even if you weren't in an airport; and the pipe is not a threat to the security of the aircraft (unless you get the pilots high. ) and wouldn't have been found by any LEO without a probable cause basis (or consent to a non-AD type search) in place before the search takes place (I think - but IANAL also implies IANALEO).

Does that make sense?

It's definitely splitting hairs but if you don't you end up trying to thread the needle without the aid of a magnifying glass - both sides think they've successfully done it but upon closer inspection it's not.

A search is not a search and consent to one does not imply consent to another but knowing the difference between each is not something most members of the general public understand. However, our courts, in this "9/11 Changed Everything" age *puke*, they've deemed allowable the scope creep of the TSA to wiggle their way into our everyday lives (for those who fly frequently) with no real basis in law or legislation. Which leads to the Kettles just throwing up their hands and agreeing "It's making us safer..." when the reality is it's not.

Thanks for reading,
BF

SgtScott31

Again, all depends on the circumstances when I asked such a question. Say OJ was walking his dog down the street a day after the killings and I walked up and asked the same question. Would a reasonable person feel they are under arrest or not free to leave? Not that OJ or anyone else would answer the question, my point, a custodial situation has to exist for Miranda to apply. I will dig up some prior case law if I can and post it.

I never said the sole possession of currency was a violation of law, and neither has TSA. The possession of large sums of money when accompanied by other factors may provide enough PC to be seized according to federal law. As far as the specific law, ask DEA. If TSA policy specifically states that money is "contraband," then obviously that is a mistake on their part. If TSA policy requests LEO presence when a large sum of money is discovered, then I have no problem with it. It has been well known since the beginning of commercial aviation that one way to get drug money to the suppliers quickly is through the use of air travel. There are two or three things that are looked at immediately when were are called to the checkpoint that will cue most LEOs to investigate further or make appropriate notification to DEA.

So TSA cannot resolve a bulk item on an x-ray machine and by proper protocol, requires a secondary hand-search. As soon as they open the bag, there is a brick of a green-leafy substance that has a strong odor of marijuana. They call law enforcement and the person is subsequently arrested. This is a warrantless and illegal search in your eyes? I just don't see it. TSA was doing what they were supposed to do by resolving an item on an x-ray and discovered drugs. By your terms (and others here), they just zip the suitcase back up and send the passenger on their way?

onlyairfare...even if found in odd locations, we could quickly ascertain that you are employed, have a bank account and probably even bank statements to show that you earned that $10k and feel like it's necessary to conceal it. The folks I deal with have no job, no bank account, dodge questions about the legitimacy of the money, flying one way to a bordering state of mexico, etc etc. There are other factors at play, but many people like you come through the checkpoints who are held up very little if any if you are carrying a significant amount of cash.

I hope they chime in. I know of halls120 and lawdawg that work in the field, but I don't believe I have seen any posts by them or others who work in law enforcement that also imply a large amount of money is never suspicious.

I don't care what state you are in, an officer at minimum must have reasonable suspicion to detain you. Simply walking up and asking some questions is not going to automatically constitute a custody situation. There are going to be other factors involved. If he asks for your ID, then he has detained you. If he tells you "you are not free to leave," then he has detained you. If he steps in front and blocks your way when you attempt to leave, then he has detained you. The courts will take all into consideration, but no officer can arrest you for refusing to talk to him.

All states require you to submit to a chemical test when requested by law enforcement, not the SFSTs.

It depends. In my state, while a traffic stop is a seizure, it is not a custodial arrest, and Miranda will not always apply. That is why I am able to conduct SFSTs and other road-side tests (which can be incriminating) without being required to advise the driver of his rights.


BFetch, that was an interesting read to say the least.

Superguy

In a word: yes.

They spot the bulk item and check the bag. No problem.

They see it's not an explosive but the brick of pot. The alarm is resolved: it's not a threat to aviation security. Zip the bag and send it on its way. What if it's a brick of oregano? Someone got busted awhile back for squeezing flour filled condoms. An overzealous TSO called the cops because he thought it was cocaine and the woman was detained, and in my opinion harassed. Turned out it wasn't that. Instead of assuming she was innocent until proven guilty, she was guilty until she proved her innocence. Do a search ... there's a thread on it.

If it's an explosive or a gun or something similar, bring the LEO's over. They found something within the scope of the search. Have at them.

We don't agree. That's fine. I'd rather err on the side of people getting away with smaller things than having too much government intrusion into people's lives. The drug runner is probably scum and deserves to be locked up. That doesn't mean I favor treading on his and the rest of Americas rights to catch a few bad guys if it means that everyone is harassed and viewed as a suspect until proven otherwise.

I think TSA's failing at its core mission that it feels it needs to expand to justify its budget and why it has so many people. Trumpeting successes such as catching illegal aliens going home, fake IDs and such looks like success, but not when you remember that all their "success" has nothing to do with actually screening for prohibited items: its actual mission. If anything, it shows that their checkpoints are more dragnets than anything else if you just look at what they trumpet as success.

Ari

It is a seizure (within the meaning of the 4th amd.) in every state. ^

scoow

Despite the rambling and bickering that has gone on for all these pages, I thought this "mistake" on the part of TSA is the subject of this thread:

ND Sol

I was in LE years before you, but I don't see why that should make any difference in our discussion. In my view, carrying cash is not a justifiable reason to detain and question anyone at a TSA screening checkpoint, especially considering that the person's sole purpose for being at the airport is thrawted if it results in a missed flight.

pmocek

I have patiently, politely, repeatedly, asked SgtScott31 to explain (in short summary form if that is all he has time for) why he thinks that we should let drug smugglers, crack pipe owners, child pornographers, copyright violators, undocumented immigrants, parking ticket scofflaws, and other criminals walk the streets instead of putting government checkpoints on our streets similar to those that TSA staffs in our airports, given that doing so was not cost prohibitive. He has repeatedly failed to answer, instead suggesting first that I should already know the answer, then that I go find his answer as previously stated in another thread:

If you have already written an answer, please provide a link; I would like to read it. I still suspect, though, that you think it would be wise to create such checkpoints. You have done absolutely nothing to convince anyone that you think it would be a bad idea. If you think that creating such checkpoints is such a bad idea that we should instead let criminals walk free, please stand up for your belief.


SgtScott31 wrote:
I responded:
SgtScott31 responded:
You have built another straw man in response to my assertion that you built a previous one. I did not, as you implied, state or suggest that law enforcement cannot take action against people if they carry contraband through a security checkpoint as long as it is not a threat to an aircraft. Nor did I state that TSA is not an arm of government.

If you disagree with me, please argue against what I have stated. Please do not make up something that I never said in order to accuse me of being incorrect.


SgtScott31 wrote:
I responded:
You didn't answer. How do you define dragnet? Let's make sure we're not simply arguing over semantics.


I asked:
You didn't answer, instead writing:
I asked you again:
You still didn't answer, instead stating:
Neither of us is griping. I'm really curious if you think TSA should look the other way when they see items that might indicate that someone is 1) carrying pictures of naked 17.5-year-olds or 2) attempting to carry a pet who has not been vaccinated as required by law onto a flight. Would you please either answer the question or explicitly decline to do so? I can't tell if this fell between the cracks or if you feel you have been backed into a corner and thus are refusing to respond in hopes that I will drop an argument that you feel you are likely to lose.

I'll try to rephrase the question with a hypothetical situation to make it clearer (note that whether or not TSA does such things is irrelevant in this case; I'm just asking for your opinion about something that might happen): If in the course of searching someone at a TSA checkpoint, a TSA employee finds a book, magazine, or photograph depicting someone who is not clearly at least 18 years old (not someone who is clearly under 18, just someone who looks, in the employee's opinion, like he or she might be under 18), should that employee -- in your opinion -- contact law enforcement about the images? If someone brings a pet to a TSA checkpoint and TSA staff -- knowing that pets at airports often indicate pets who are unlawfully transported across state lines without vaccinations as required by law -- believe that the pet might not be vaccinated, should they involve law enforcement?

I'm guessing, given your previous statements, that you think TSA has a duty to report all indications of possible wrongdoing, but I'm only guessing. Please -- I want to know what you think about this.

yyzvoyageur

Let me preface my comments by first saying that I haven't read this whole thread and don't plan to simply due to lack of interest.

Having said that, I think there is a huge difference between the TSA finding cocaine in the course of a bag check and the police setting up random checkpoints on the streets. The cocaine that's found by the TSA is found by happenstance. It's like a police officer who pulls someone over for speeding. He looks in the car and notices drugs in the ashtray. The drugs were found in the course of his other duties and not as part of some dragnet.

I do think there should be some limits on what the TSA reports to police. A number of unpaid parking tickets or copied DVDs is very minor. A rational person, though, would have no problem with the TSA reporting a brick of suspected cocaine or a stack of child pornography to the local police.

Superguy

Bad form to imply that people who don't agree with your opinion of this are irrationtal.

I think everyone on here agrees that the child porn is bad. Many are ok with an exception for that. Many are not ok with TSA looking thru documents and stuff to look for stuff like that though.

Take this example:

Bryn Mawr Student Sues Over Flour-Condom Arrest

Some TSA do-gooder thought he made a big catch with what turned out to be flour filled condoms. She was subsquently arrested and held for 3 weeks until they determined the condoms were flour.

Fortunately, she sued and settled for $180,000.

Settlement.

Yeah, it's ok to harass people on what something might look like? Collateral damage, right, as long as they get the bad guy drug runners?

Big

Super

HSVTSO Dean

It should also be noted that TSA is not required to report all instances of wrong-doing. It's not a blanket rule of 'reporting contraband.'

"Large sums of cash" are mentioned specifically as having to be reported if found. Narcotics and paraphernalia are mentioned specifically as having to be reported if found.

Other things—pirated DVDs, for example—are not. I've seen maybe a hundred or so pirated DVDs in my six years, and I, quite literally, just finish screening the bag and zip it up and send it on its way.

I do not have a directive from the TSA requiring me or even suggesting that I should report it, so I don't.

yyzvoyageur

For what it's worth, I don't personally believe that a large sum of cash found during a bag check is something that should be reported to police. I think it's the grossly illegal things that should be reported: child porn, drugs, guns (I'm Canadian, so understand this from that point-of-view). And before someone suggests it, I understand that a duct-taped brick of white powder may not be drugs, but it is a likely possibility.