TSA & Currency Control
#61
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: PSM
Posts: 69,232
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.
#62
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Florida
Posts: 3,006
#63
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: St. Lucie West,FL/Las Vegas,NV
Posts: 277
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.
#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.
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.
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)
Examples of such contraband include:
- Illegal Drugs
- Drug Paraphernalia
- Large Amounts of Cash(10,000.00)
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.
#65
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 11,509
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.
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.
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.
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.
As far as punishing the messenger, that would never happen around here.
#66
Suspended
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 4,953
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.
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.
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.
#67
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Nashville, TN
Posts: 355
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.
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.
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.
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.
Isn't there someone taking pictures at your airport within your imagined one minute check-point response zone?
#68
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Original Poster
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: DFW
Posts: 27,997
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.
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.
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.
#69
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: BOS and vicinity
Programs: Former UA 1P
Posts: 3,723
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."
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.
#70
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Nashville, TN
Posts: 355
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.
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.
#71
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: ATL
Programs: DL, AA
Posts: 6,031
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.
#72
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Catania, Sicily/South Jersey (PHL)/Houston, Texas/Red Stick/airborne in-between
Programs: United Global Svs, AA PlatPro, WN RR, AZ/ITA Freccia, Hilton Diam, Bonvoy Gold, Hertz Prez, IHG
Posts: 3,529
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?
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
#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: 9,388
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?
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.....
#74
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 109
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?
#75
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: LAX/TPE
Programs: United 1K, JAL Sapphire, SPG Lifetime Platinum, National Executive Elite, Hertz PC, Avis PC
Posts: 41,935
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?
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.
$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,....