If the person has filed FINCEN Form 105 by mail (the address is on the back) by what means would the CBP at the airport have knowledge of that fact?



Again, how can you determine if the form is filed? I say I mailed it and I think you would be hard pressed to prove otherwise. What law is violated by not disclosing to a LEO possession of such monies?

Did TSORon decide to go? Because I wanted to make sure he read the post by rustyhaight on the subject of quietly packing up my stuff and returning to the public side of the airport. rustyhaight sez I can pack up and go back to the public side so long as I behave myself and do not interfere, and I trust rustyhaight's judgment because he has credentials:

Any reason I can't pack up my stuff and go back to the public side of the airport at that point? That was my question.

OR

If you still prefer to answer your own straw man questions, Ron, then go ahead--are you wrong when you say

Quote:
or is rustyhaight, the former LEO and current LEO trainer, right when he says the pax already in secondary calmly packing up his stuff and returning to the public side is indicating he or she "no longer wants to go into the sterile area"?

If you called over a LEO like rustyhaight in that situation, do you think a LEO like him would detain me under those specific circumstances?

I'm going to hazard a guess and say - computer? Phone? :)


None. If, though, the LEO discovered the monies in your possession you'd have to demonstrate that you'd disclosed them on 105 or else be prepared for a detention. I'd say that meets reasonable suspicion if you have the money, no documentation and aren't answering questions. If I'm that LEO, you're not going anywhere until there's a little more investigation done. This is the norm, else no one would ever have to fill out the form - they'd just carry the money and, if stopped, not say anything and they'd walk. That obviously doesn't happen.

If you just say you mailed it, that's not good enough either. People have been known to lie before. ;) A bet, after a few calls, the matter would be resolved rather quickly one way or another.

A skill you demonstrate further in your response.


Obviously. I can search someone with consent. We're talking about the establishment of PC.


Wow, a reluctant admission of limits on your powers.


Again, I have the same powers to "call down to CBP" that you do. They can say, "thank you very much", but they cannot share any information with you. FinCen 105 information is collected as part of a "system of records" maintained by a Federal agency and protected by the privacy act. Unless you can get warrant, they cannot give you any information on that form, or even confirm whether or not it was filed. You have no PC.


Now your reasoning is getting circular. You're saying that the stuff you "found" was the result of a PC-based search. Your basis for PC was the stuff you found. Typical cop brain thinking.


It is not a criminal violation, first of all, and second of all, once again, they have NO WAY to know if the FinCen105 has been filed, unless the passenger volunteers the information. That is typically what happens in such circumstances -- a LEO finds a bag of cash and a ticket to Buenos Aires in the course of a search and asks if the money has been declared. The traveller, like most being ignorant of the requirement, responds by saying "Declared? um, no." Then they get busted. But if they kept their mouth shut there would be nothing the LEO could do.

There's a law, too, that requires you to file a tax return every year. That doesn't mean not doing so is a "criminal violation," or that you have to produce it on demand to a LEO, or that a LEO can detain you on the basis of refusing to answer questions about whether or not you have filed it, or that a LEO can ring up the IRS and demand information without a warrant about whether or not you have filed a 1040 or a FinCen 105. Neither the IRS nor any other agency can legally share information with any other agency or use it for anything other than the purpose for which it was collected. That's why if you file a tax return declaring 10 million in income for drug dealing, and list "hit man fees" as part of your deductible expenses, the IRS can't turn this over info over to the FBI.

I'm not sure if your use of the word "desecration" in this context was a conscious pun or Freudian slip, but I love it either way.

In any event, it is most certainly not just up to their "discretion", they are legally bound to keep that info private, just as a bank, broker, agent, or sales clerk cannot reveal information about you to LE without a warrant. I If you are a doctor, priest or lawyer, they cannot provide information even if they DO have a warrant. I was on a project once in Africa where, upon arrival, I was asked the purpose of my visit. I said it was for a project. They asked for the name of client, which is privileged information that I cannot reveal without a valid court order or subpoena. It took me about two hours to get in, but if I had given that information, I would have been breaking the law.

That's the whole reason the Bush administration was pushing the Senate to create a special carve-out for the telecommunications companies who provided private customer info to the government without a warrant, to protect them from getting sued for violating their customer privacy obligations (Qwest was the one exception, they told the Feds they would be happy to co-operate on production of a warrant). If it was "discretionary," no special legislation to protect the telecommunications companies from the liability they are facing as a result of making these unauthorised disclosures would be required.

Courts have ruled that you are not free to pack up your stuff and try to leave to avoid screening, once you have entered into the screening. That would simply enable terrorists, or others, to gauge the effectiveness of various tactics of trying to beat the screening system. Thus, once you have entered the screening, you cannot simply pack up your stuff and return to the public side of the airport.

See the 9th Circuit Aukai case

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/...h/0410226p.pdf

My error...
 

My apologies triehle, I developed a hypothetical to narrowly contemplate (too narrowly, perhaps?) the subject of an arrest for "assault" vs "interference" I was replying to and wrote about that without considering what was actually defined as the "sterile" area by the TSA. In that regard, my hypothetical is clearly flawed. Your follow on post should not be taken as a negative reflection on you but rather my approach there. Again, my apologies.

Djlawman is clearly correct, the "sterile area" is secretly defined by the TSA as seen in the Aukai decision where it includes this reference:

Where I concluded that scenario predicated on the idea that the "sterile area" was after "secondary" in that analysis as I wrote...
...my hypothetical was clearly wrong and I had moved beyond my original intent. It's clear at that point they'd call over the LEO right away and he would likely know how the TSA defined the sterile area at that airport and would, shall we say, "explain that to you..."

My error, my apologies.

Dang spell checker, put what I meant not what I clicked. arrgggg

Sorry you will have to provide me with statute(s) or case law to support your position.

An airline has no statutory legal obligation to keep your travel plans secret from a law enforcement agent. Those records do not belong to you, they belong to the airlines. The airline also has no obligation to give them to a law enforcement agent without a warrant.

A customer can sue an airline for disclosure if the customer feels they have been harmed, just as they could sue a telecom. The fact that the disclosure is NOT mandatory by statute was the whole purpose for the carve out legislation.

If the government could create a law that would shield a business from civil suits the cooperation from those companies would increase.

BTW a bank, broker, agent, or sales clerk can legally cooperate with police without warrants.

If you can find supporting case law or statutes please post them.

EDIT: On further search I found some state statutes that limit disclosure of financial information from banks. Looked similar to the HIPPA law.

You seem to be contradicting yourself. The carve-out legislation was aimed at protecting the telcos from customer lawsuits because they shared customer information without a warrant. If such disclosures are already discretionary, then there wouldn't be any grounds for suit or need for a shield law.

Co-operate? Sure. Reveal private or privileged information? No. The police, acting on tip that OBL is hiding in upstate New York and is known to have a haemorrhoid problem, can walk into a pharmacy, show a picture of OBL, and ask, "has this guy been in here?" But that doesn't mean they can say, "give us all the names of your customers who have bought haemorrhoid creme in the last six months." If the police got my name that way and came knocking on my door looking for OBL, I'd be suing the pharmacy. At my company or any other, the response to such a request would be, "We'd be happy to provide that information upon production of a warrant."

If the disclosures were mandatory there would be no need for a shield law. The fact that the government can't force a business to turn over records without a warrant is the whole purpose for the shield laws. (Note: certain businesses have statutory requirements that force records inspections without a warrant, such as firearms dealers.)

Think about it, most companies would be more willing to give the police business records without a warrant if they knew that they were suit proof when doing so.

You company may respond with "get a warrant" but most do not and are not required to.

In your mind you think that company records are in some way statutorily required to remain private when it comes to a law enforcement request.

If that were the case any information gathered by that police officer by that request would not be permissible because the officer has knowingly caused the company to break the law.

Once again, if it is perfectly legal, how is it they are liable if they do so?

Every company I have ever worked for has that as a policy. Read the privacy policy the company commits to when you sign up for Google or Flyertalk. They very clearly indicate your information will not be shared, except under a very few, very limited circumstances, invariably including the production of a warrant, subpoena or court order. Even in the absence of such a written policy, your bank could not, for example, publish your banking transactions, or your telephone service provider publish your calling records without your permission. Those are your records and they cannot be shared without either your consent or legal order.

It is not illegal for McDonald's to sell overly hot coffee but that still cost them a ton of money. You can be civilly liable for a wholly legal act if the person suing you can prove to a jury that you in some way injured them. (financial, physical, emotional)

A business would open themselves up to a host of lawsuits if they published your information, but providing information in good faith to aid in a police investigation would offer them some protection.

Flyer Talk and other websites place their privacy policy only to bend to public pressure due to publicity about site that sell your email address and other personal information. By placing that privacy policy they are making a contract with the user. If they broke that policy you could sue them for breach of contract but not much more.

Do you ever get junk mail? Do you realize that I can buy a list that includes your name, sex, income, marital status, address, mortgage amount, mortgage balance, auto ownership, auto loan balance, and credit score? All of it legal.

And I am heading to bed, good night.

I'm really having a hard time understanding your point here.

On the way to the airport I drop off Fincen form 105 at a local post office. I have complied with all laws. There is no way for you or any other person to prove that I have not complied with reporting requirements as the law requires. But you have already pre-determined that I am lying. So you are going to harass, detain me and possible arrest me anyhow even though I have not violated any laws.

That's not police work, that is just pure BS.

I'm talking about the airline(s) consent to provide the information.

Oh no, I have no problem admitting my limits of authority. I know pretty much what I can and cannot do.

Do you really believe this? That LEO agencies cannot share information with one another when necessary to further an investigation? If so, you're wrong. If I have RS to believe the monies may be undeclared, CBP can indeed share with me, as a LEO, that is pursuant to an investigation.

We were talking about TSA calling a LEO over after finding monies. No PC is needed for that kind of search. Of course, PC is not needed to search anyway, RS is.......

Wrong and wrong.

It's a criminal violation with penalties of incarceration up to 5 years and a $250,000 fine as well as possibly having all the monies seized (if a nexus to smuggling/organized crime can be made).

Here is the code violation. And here is the code for the criminal penalty.

This guy would argue differently.

Asked and answered. It's a violation of criminal law. Cite above.

If it's been dropped in the mail just that day then you're right - I can't prove it (of course it says that travelers are supposed to file the form with Customs at the port of entry or departure....). I'd would detain you long enough for questioning and notification to CBP. I'd ask things like what kind of questions were on the form, how many pages was it, etc. Things you should know if you really filled it out. Then I'd watch to see how nervous you were, other little tells. If I believed you, off you'd go. Ten minutes tops. If I didn't, off you'd go still but with me forwarding all the information I had to the appropriate agencies.