FlyerTalk Forums - So what exactly creates probable cause?

FlyerTalk Forums (https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/index.php)

- Checkpoints and Borders Policy Debate (https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/checkpoints-borders-policy-debate-687/)

- - So what exactly creates probable cause? (https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/checkpoints-borders-policy-debate/946595-so-what-exactly-creates-probable-cause.html)

Quote:

Originally Posted by polonius (Post 11680998)

Firstly, I don't see how you could legally obtain a passenger's itinerary without a warrant, but for the sake of argument, let's say that you could.

Many things are private and protected by the 4th Amendment-- an airline itinerary is not one of them.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ari (Post 11681924)

Many things are private and protected by the 4th Amendment-- an airline itinerary is not one of them.

Really? I guess I didn't read the part of the 4th Amendment that specifies the things that are excluded from its protection.

Quote:

Originally Posted by polonius (Post 11682202)

Really? I guess I didn't read the part of the 4th Amendment that specifies the things that are excluded from its protection.

Could be that you are reading things into the 4th Ammendment that are not there? Pretty common around here really, you would not be the first.

Quote:

Originally Posted by RichardKenner (Post 11675003)

Does carrying that amount of money constitute probably cause to suspect he might be a drug dealer? If so, what would be the next step of the "investigation" if he refused to answer any question that would either admit or deny that fact (and he should not answer any such question for reasons that have been discussed numerous times)?

Did he claim the cash was his?
Was his flight one way?
Does he have any carry/check luggage?
Does he have a criminal history?, etc.

Probable cause in an inappropriate standard in this scenario. Depending on the results of an initial investigation, the money could be administratively seized, he would be given a receipt, and *the subject* would then carry the burden of demonstrating to a federal magistrate the legitimate ownership of the cash.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ND Sol (Post 11678110)

For the most part, I would want TSO's to ignore items that are not prohibited airside.

That's what they are doing now, it's just that the TSA definition of For the most part is different than yours.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TSORon (Post 11682280)

Could be that you are reading things into the 4th Ammendment that are not there? Pretty common around here really, you would not be the first.

Before you can claim that you have to make a logical argument against those readings.

BTW I am still waiting for you to prove me wrong on the TSA blog.

Quote:

Originally Posted by polonius (Post 11682202)

Really? I guess I didn't read the part of the 4th Amendment that specifies the things that are excluded from its protection.

Airline itinerary data is property of the airline and they are free to give it to law enforcement at their desecration. They are also free to tell the cop to get a warrant.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trollkiller (Post 11682997)

Before you can claim that you have to make a logical argument against those readings.

BTW I am still waiting for you to prove me wrong on the TSA blog.

Come on TK, you cant just toss that stinky thing out there and run, you gotta be more specific. Where on the blog?

Quote:

Originally Posted by TSORon (Post 11683222)

Come on TK, you cant just toss that stinky thing out there and run, you gotta be more specific. Where on the blog?

In reply to your challenge to show you where the TSA violates rights by its procedures.

Someone re-posted my response to you over here, and you attempted to answer, but it still leaves the challenge on the TSA blog unanswered. The way it looks on the TSA blog is you just tucked tail and ran. You need to respond on the Blog.

Quote:

Originally Posted by gofast (Post 11682623)

*the subject* would then carry the burden of demonstrating to a federal magistrate the legitimate ownership of the cash.

Aside from the issue of this being a violation of the basic "innocent until proven guilty" doctrine, how could somebody do that in practice? If I cashed a $4,300 check (the amount in the recent case), nobody would have a record of the serial numbers given to me. How could I prove those particular bills were the result of cashing that check? The whole point of such sums of cash is precisely that they aren't traceable.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bart (Post 11681584)

TSA officers do not have the authority to detain anyone. However, they DO have the authority to deny access beyond the checkpoint to anyone who has not been properly cleared through screening. This is not detention because that person can turn around and leave the screening area towards the public side.

A pax who is past the WTMD can quietly collect his or her things, turn around and walk to the public side?

Isn't that "gaming" the security system?

Is there even a route available to do that, without walking backwards through the WTMD?

Quote:

Originally Posted by triehle (Post 11683653)

The Sterile area begins at the WTMD.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TSORon (Post 11683670)

The Sterile area begins at the WTMD.

Typical, Ron. You're answering a question that was not asked.

My question:

Quote:

Can a pax who is past the WTMD quietly collect his or her things, turn around and walk to the public side?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trollkiller (Post 11683052)

Airline itinerary data is property of the airline and they are free to give it to law enforcement at their desecration. They are also free to tell the cop to get a warrant.

Correct, sir. 99.99999% of the time they'll turn over the information. It's not considered private, as a rule, as to where you're going.

Of course, if they say no, then no it is, absent a warrant.

Quote:

Originally Posted by polonius (Post 11680998)

You appear to have perfected the art of giving answers that are factually correct but nonetheless misleading.

It's a valuable skill set for a LEO. :)

Quote:

Firstly, I don't see how you could legally obtain a passenger's itinerary without a warrant, but for the sake of argument, let's say that you could.

Easy. Consent.

Quote:

Your reply suggests that an itinerary with an international destination would give you probable cause, but as I have posted before, the FinCen 105's own instructions indicate that it may be filed at ANY point prior to departure.

Not PC. More articuable facts.

Quote:

So again, assuming that you can legally find out if this particular traveller is headed out of the country, there is most definitely no way for you to know (legally) whether or not he is planning to file his FinCen 105 on his way out of the country, or indeed whether or not he has ALREADY filed it.

Except a quick call to CBP. :)

Quote:

It's not up to a citizen to demonstrate they are in compliance with the law, it's down to law enforcement to have reasonable grounds to believe that they are not.

This is easy - call down to CBP. The person has to file before leaving. If they're not trying to leave (on jet bridge) simply call down to CBP and let them know what you've found at let them handle it. That's what I would do.

Quote:

Given that it is entirely plausible for someone to have cash AND be on their way out of the country AND have filed or be planning to file a FinCen105, having the first two pieces of information doesn't create probable cause.

No, but it creates enough to notify CBP and let them know what you've found. Then they can have a nice agent waiting on the jet bridge for the flight to make sure compliance has been met.

Quote:

You might just as well detain such a traveller for Jimmy Hoffa's murder, given that you don't have any evidence that he WASN'T responsible for it. Information on a FinCen105 is subject to the same Privacy Act restrictions that a tax return is, it is shared with specific agencies, for specific reasons, which have a duty to protect that information from those with no need to know. An airport LEO has no need to know about confidential, private information shared between a traveller and the IRS, and cannot legally get access to it.

Incorrect. If the LEO has come across someone with monies and no form has been filed (or they refuse to answer whether or not it has been met) then they have every need to know what's going on. Not disclosing such monies is a criminal violation, and they're LEOs. Although the first option would probably always be a call to CBP to give them a heads up.