In August 2006, professional gamblers and Nevada residents Gina Fiore and Keith Gipson attempted to return from San Juan to Las Vegas carrying $97,000 in cash ($30k in "seed" money plus $67k in gambling proceeds). TSA screeners in San Juan alerted the DEA. When Fiore and Gipson arrived in Atlanta for their connecting flight to Las Vegas, DEA agents questioned them and, ultimately, seized the funds, refusing to leave them even enough for cab fare.
Later, after having been provided abundant documentation showing that the funds seized were in fact legitimate gambling proceeds and not drug trafficking monies, the lead agent submitted a "misleading" probable cause affidavit to support the forfeiture of the funds. The Asst. US attorney assigned to the case ultimately refused to go forward due to the lack of probable cause. The $97k was returned to Fiore and Gipson some 7 months after it was seized.
Fiore and Gipson sued the Atlanta DEA agents in federal district court in Nevada, alleging violation of their constitutional rights. The district court dismissed the case for lack of personal jurisdiction over the DEA agents, finding that the alleged violations took place in Atlanta and not Nevada.
Today, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed, holding that even though the initial seizure occurred in Atlanta and was thus not actionable in Nevada, the lead DEA agent's action in pursuing the forfeiture of the funds were directed at Fiore and Gipson
in Nevada and were intended to affect them
in Nevada and were, for that reason actionable in Nevada.
What this means is that even though you can't sue in your home state for actions that were taken by the TSA or others at an airport elsewhere, if government agents continue to "pursue" you in your home state, by initiating unlawful forfeiture proceedings, for example, as occurred here, you can sue them on your home turf. A small victory for travelers.
See the Ninth Circuit decision
here.