I sense a disconnect
 

Here is the big disconnect between many here and TSORon.

TSORon sincerely believes that an amount of cash that "approaches the limit" constitutes an "issue". Many of the people here on FT think that traveling with any amount of case is not an issue at all and that TSA should mind its own business in that regard.

I wonder if there is some authority we can turn to in order to resolve the difference? Perhaps we could consult the actual law to see what it says regarding the screening function TSA is empowered to perform. Looking at Title 49, Section 1540.4 we see that "Screening Function" is defined as "the inspection of individuals and property for weapons, explosives, and incendiaries."

That seems pretty clear and easy to understand. I only need one more point of clarification and I'll be content. Could TSORon please explain which category - "weapons", "explosives" or "incendiaries" - a wad of cash belongs to.

Also how does a wad of cash belong or not belong to that category depending on it value, not its volume. In other words, how could a single $10,000 bill be a "weapon explosive or incendiar(y)" and 9999 $1 bills not be?
I have to admit, that one has me stumped. Of course, I'm not a security professional.

There...is...no...limit...on...cash. So keep your smelly paws off my cash. Don't tell me you still think "it's illegal to carry $10,000 out of the country, has been for a long time."

Re:

My point is that your interpretation of "reasonable" differs from 4th amendment "reasonable" in the context of an administrative search.

The TSO counted the $4710, interrogated the detainee, and then threatened to bring in law enforcement personnel to whom the detainee would be required to answer, and you said "He did not overstep his authority in any way, nor that of the TSA, only the way he interacted with the passenger."

TSA itself investigating the money as a drug crime under the guise of a potential customs violation seems well outside the scope of its warrantless search. If TSA "creates probable cause" by searching more intensely than "no more intrusive or intensive than necessary, in light of current technology, to detect weapons or explosives, " it is no longer "reasonable".

Correction: Title 49, Section 1540.5

Thank you for the correction. I apologize for any confusion.

The only way that would be justified is:
1) They're looking in the wad of cash to make sure that there are no dangerous items secreted or hidden there (briefcase full of money with knife in middle, etc. Preposterous example, I know, but you get the point. I once had a guy I arrested hide a razor blade in a briefcase full of papers. Bad day, that one.)
2) In the course of looking for dangerous items they discover a large amount of cash. They can then call LEOs over to investigate whether or not the rules about transporting cash were followed.

Nasty. One obvious point, however: upon arrest, you are allowed to search the suspect and his immediate possessions to ensure officer safety, which would include going through the papers in his briefcase. Airline passengers are not suspects, nor are they under arrest when the administrative search takes place. TSO are not LEOs and have no power to detain or conduct a search that is anything more than minimally-intrusive and designed solely to determine whether the passenger has anything that threatens air safety. Moreover, there is a hierarchy of escalation: a search of a wallet, for example, is not justified if the metal detector didn't sound, though swabbing it might be.

They can call over LEOs, but they may not detain the cash. They have no powers of seizure.

If I am carrying all my pay stubs can they call a LEO over to investigate if I am current on my taxes?

If you would have said they can call a Customs officer over to investigate I may agree with you, but it is not within a local cop's authority or expertise to determine if the proper currency export law has been followed.

Here we go again. :(
1. TSA screeners are always "looking for dangerous items", even if they don't find any. Giving them scope to "discover" cash when they're "looking for dangerous items" is simply allowing them to look for cash whenever they choose.

2. Apart from the repeated insistence from TSA screeners that they "have to" inform LEOs about large amounts of cash, what legal requirement is there for TSA to get involved in cash declaration? Cite source, please.

3. Francine dodged it - would you care to give a definition of "large amount" of cash? I assume it's by volume, not value, since you determine whether it's large enough to "investigate" before you count it.

4. If the passenger is on a domestic flight, there are no rules about transporting cash. None. At all. Therefore on domestic flights, there is no way to check whether "rules" have been followed if there are no rules. There is quite simply nothing that TSA or LEOs need to be involved in when a passenger is carrying cash on a domestic flight.

5. If the passenger is on an international flight, it is possible (as has been pointed out here and on PV many times) for the passenger to have made a declaration of the cash by mail on the way to the airport or to be planning to make a declaration before boarding for his international flight. How would a LEO "investigate" whether the rules have been followed?

This is just mission creep and self-importance on the part of TSA screeners. If they want to do CBP's job, they should go get a job at CBP. In the meantime, if they're not busy enough looking for weapons or explosives, they can start screening cargo or go clean some tubs.

If the briefcase is not pursuant to the arrest and the suspect has no access to it, the officer has no justification for not getting a warrant if they feel the briefcase contains evidence of a crime.

Any evidence found in the briefcase could and should be tossed.

The Supremes just ruled on a similar case involving the search of a vehicle and its contents. Arizona v. Gant

This rationale confuses me. The rules only require notification for amounts >$10,000 and only require notification to US Customs. What rationale -based on law- would the screener have for determining if the amount of cash is > or < $10,000 once he had determined that there was no prohibited item hidden inside. It seems to me that once he begins to actually count the money he is exceeding the scope of the administrative search. It seems self-evident that a pile of cash does not fall within the category of weapon, explosive or incendiary.

Even assuming that you can (legally) justify involving a LEO to investigate "whether or not the rules ... were followed" how would such an investigation take place?

LEO, "You have to file the proper paperwork if you're taking >$10,000 out of the country. Did you do that?"

PAX #1, "Not yet, I'll do it before I board my flight."

PAX #2, "I mailed it in on the way to the airport."

PAX #3, "Do you work for Customs? If not, then mind your own business."

PAX #4, "I refuse to answer any questions without my attorney present."

PAX #5, "Get lost."

How would a true investigation proceed after any of the above responses? I'm not talking about hassling the PAX because he had an attitude or to show who is the boss. I'm interested in how a local LEO could actually conduct a realistic investigation? Understand that no crime will take place until the passenger actually does, in fact, leave the country without having filed the proper paperwork. So long as he is still in the country any investigation would be, by definition, an investigation into a potential, future crime at best. How exactly does a LEO investigate a crime that has not been committed?

I'm not trying to be cute. I really want to know if LEOs really have enough time on their hands to investigate things which only may happen?

I didn't make the example to equate the search to that of an admin search, but to demonstrate that dangerous things can be hidden in unobtrusive areas.

Correct. I wasn't clear, so thanks for making my point for me better than I did. :)

It's not scope to discover anything other than dangerous items. If, in the course of said discovery, they discover other items those are admissible.

Did I make such a claim? Cite source, please.

They may refer such things to local/fed LEOs. I'm not aware of any requirement to do so. Of course, I'm not a TSO so maybe one of them on the board may answer if such an admin requirement exists.

See above.

Nor to rules prohibit a TSO from making the referral. It would then be up to the local/fed LEO to determine if sufficient cause exists to warrant further investigation, based upon the totality of the circumstances.

First and foremost, by interviewing the subject. :)

:confused:

Mine was search incident to arrest.

Wasn't. See above. Inventory searches are also permissible, and recommended. :)

Everything is situational - totality of the circumstances. What is the situation at hand? That dictates everything.