Originally Posted by
SgtScott31
Seizures of large sums of money at security checkpoints have been occurring long before TSA's inception. With that said, I have yet to see one seizure where I work where I felt the person was a fraction honest and/or legitimate about where and how they received the funds. It's funny to see a person who claimed $18k to the IRS the year before, and now has $42k in cash to start a dry-cleaning business with a "partner," but yet does not know the partner's name, address, or phone number and has no job. Do you think any of them get mad when the currency is seized? They expect it. They cannot show one shred of evidence of legally obtaining the money. I see large sums of money many times with Egyptian families and others in the middle east. They may get questioned, but I have yet to see their money confiscated because they legitimately earned it and have appropriate documentation to prove such. Besides, TSA has little to do with it. They see large bulks of money and call law enforcement. We investigate a little further, and if some things don't add up and/or we detect deception, then it goes further.
I know this subject has come up once before and there was many posts made regarding the legitimacy of these searches at checkpoints. Before we get into that again, regardless of whether you feel the search is legal (even though it has been proven as an administrative search where one consents by entering the checkpoint), it's really a mute point.
If you're dumb enough to try to take drug-buying money through a security checkpoint at a US airport, you deserve to get caught.
Last I checked, there is a presumption of innocence until proved guilty in a court of law.
Originally Posted by
SgtScott31
It is left up to a federal judge when currency is confiscated. That is, if the person even wants to contest the seizure, which they rarely do. It's not there's to begin with. They're just the mule carrying it to buy the drugs.
Not really. The money is confiscated. THe decision to confiscate/forfeit was not made by a court - it was made by a occifer. The person who owned it has to petition to get it back. Guilty until he proves his innocence.
Yes, I am opposed to seizures under admiralty laws. For just that reason.
Oh, and part of the problem is that in many places the police department that makes the seizure is 'rewarded' by keeping part of the spoils. But there is no corresponding penalty if the seizure was found to be improper. The entire burden is on the person from whom the money was seized - he/she has to petition, he/she lose use of the money during the court proceedings, he/she may be identified publically as a perp - even if they aren't. That is known in the real world as being a conflict of interest. There is a very, very strong incentive to seize now and ask questions later.
If a couple of pills are rolled up in a baggie and/or artfully concealed, then yes, we are normally called. People who have legal or prescribed pills do not hide them when coming through security. It is a call by call scenario, and it is pretty obvious who carries the Sun - Sat pills and who legitimately has any type of drugs. We are rarely called on these unless it is a blatant illegal drug (i.e. marijuana, white powder).
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?
