Great, I happen to be one of those brown skin types so guess I can tick that box too

I have to say, having not paid much attention to this particular topic in the past, following this thread has been an eye opener to say the least.

Obviously this decision is only about the narrow question of jurisdiction, but the narrative related in decision is troubling on so many levels. First, it's quite clear that despite Bierfeldt, the TSA is trying to harass people for carrying cash, even though that is not what they were established to do.

Second, of course, is that despite Anderson, the cops are still using phony dog "alerts" to create "probable cause."

But most frightening is how this case makes clear how once one of these clowns becomes aware of your cash, it is basically up to you to prove that you have the money legitimately, not v.v. These guys had to produce all kinds receipts, records and evidence supporting their assertion that the money was legally theirs, rather than the government needing to produce evidence that it was not. Beyond disgusting.

Yes -- but one also has to look at the other side and the incentive that exists for doing this. The agency that confiscates the money (or car, house, boat, etc.) gets to keep it. If that isn't like allowing the fx to guard the henhouse, I'm not sure what is. When your possessions are arrested there is not a concept of innocent until proven guilty. You must prove that they are legally yours.

Without the profit motive, there would be a lt fewer of these cases.