|
Originally Posted by law dawg
(Post 11687077)
That's the rub - in order for the officer to determine whether or not it's illegal they have to spend at least 1 second talking to you. My psychic powers only work on Wednesdays, so every other day I must actually talk to people to find out what's going on.
Originally Posted by law dawg
(Post 11687077)
Because there are times when you can mail it in. I don't believe carrying the cash out of the country or into it is one of them.
Again, this is the problem with most LEOs. They think the law says whatever it is they want it to mean. So if you are stopped and you say "I already filed", they tell you it should be "filed at the time of departure". Get stopped in the departure lounge and tell them you are waiting to file until "time of departure" as the instructions indicate, then they will undoubtedly tell you you are in violation because you haven't filed already. In their view, the "correct" interpretation is whichever one screws the civilian in that particular circumstance. |
Originally Posted by Trollkiller
(Post 11686977)
Sorry dude you misread the instructions. You don't mail when you are carrying the cash only if you received the money or are mailing/shipping the money.
From FINCEN Form 105 (PDF Warning) You are correct TK, I would have to file with the Port Officer, not Barney Fife. |
Originally Posted by polonius
(Post 11686717)
They can "provide information" but they cannot reveal private information without a lawful order.
Apparently, you believe you can stop people on the street and detain them until they have satisfied you that they haven't broken any laws, so I would say you don't know what you can do. Now you're jumping a TSO finding cash, to RS, to an "investigation" that warrants sharing of information collected under the scope of the Privacy Act, all without anything that provides any evidence of a crime? Now you're trying to conflate the case of guy actively attempting to conceal cash, "willfully" attempting to smuggle it, and make false statements to a federal officer with the situation of most travellers who are over the limit who have no clue about the requirement and make no effort to conceal it. The actions in the link you provided are criminal, but they are entirely different from the situation we are discussing here. And please note, that even in this case, the court gave the guy his money back. And refuted above. |
Originally Posted by polonius
(Post 11687038)
I'd love to see an attempted prosecution for dropping the form in the mail instead of filing it at the airport. I'd say the words "dismissed with prejudice" would figure in there somewhere.
Without a form as evidence, an LEO can arrest you. What happens on the prosecution side is their purview. But the LEO can detain as RS, make the call to CBP, and then take it from there. |
Originally Posted by polonius
(Post 11687156)
No, the "rub" is that you don't seem to understand simple concepts like "burden of proof" and "presumption of innocence".
An officer doesn't get to detain you until you can demonstrate you have done nothing illegal. An officer gets to detain you only if there is evidence of wrongdoing. |
Originally Posted by Boggie Dog
(Post 11687399)
You are correct TK, I would have to file with the Port Officer, not Barney Fife.
If the port officer is after the security checkpoint the TSA needs to keep their nose out of it. |
Originally Posted by law dawg
(Post 11687523)
Correct. And possessing over $10000 in a airport without proper documentation is RS of such a crime.
Possessing over $10k in an airport is NOT reasonable suspicion of a crime without other indicators. |
Originally Posted by Trollkiller
(Post 11687580)
You need to reword the above.
Possessing over $10k in an airport is NOT reasonable suspicion of a crime without other indicators. |
Originally Posted by Trollkiller
(Post 11687567)
Is the port officer before or after the security checkpoint? If it is before the checkpoint then the TSO should call Customs if s/he suspects that the passenger has not filed, not a local cop.
If the port officer is after the security checkpoint the TSA needs to keep their nose out of it. |
Originally Posted by law dawg
(Post 11687594)
Without evidence of having submitted it? Without at least a verbal acknowledgment of such? I'd argue it would warrant a short detention and investigation.
Your statement hints that you could investigate anywhere on airport property. |
Originally Posted by PTravel
(Post 11687143)
A common myth, but untrue.
Apparently you can't trust stories from politicians or the news. |
Originally Posted by Trollkiller
(Post 11687580)
You need to reword the above.
Possessing over $10k in an airport is NOT reasonable suspicion of a crime without other indicators. |
Originally Posted by Trollkiller
(Post 11687619)
Nope, it would only warrant an investigation if the person was PAST the security checkpoint.
Your statement hints that you could investigate anywhere on airport property. Although any person I encountered with that much cash on them would warrnt some scrutiny, unless they were a courier or the like. Of course, to have stopped them I would need some kind of articuable facts anyway.... |
Originally Posted by law dawg
(Post 11687777)
Oh, I see. You can't read my mind? I was speaking in the terminal.
Although any person I encountered with that much cash on them would warrant some scrutiny, unless they were a courier or the like. Of course, to have stopped them I would need some kind of articuable facts anyway.... |
Originally Posted by Trollkiller
(Post 11687971)
My psychic powers only work on alternating Thursdays.
Weird. |
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 2:17 am. |
This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.