knotyeagle

Ah, does your brethren screener in Saint Louis (STL) know that? His understanding was that even $4700 (cash & checks which means not all of it was cash) he can detain a passenger.

So what is the policy du jour?

Tom M.

But back in April you said this:

thebat

You have to declare it when leaving or entering the country. What is the problem?

Boggie Dog

Even if the person is leaving the country the amount of cash that person has is of no concern of TSA. Most times the declaration form is submitted after the TSA checkpoint.

Seems that TSA even agreed with a court to stop looking for cash.

It is clear that TSA cannot find WEI yet they continue doing things that improve aviation security one iota.

jkhuggins

I seem to recall asking you the same question several pages ago.

Seriously ... the only source of data on the efficacy of TSA's use of WBIs is, naturally, going to have to come from the TSA itself. That makes you (slightly) more likely than members of the general public to have access to that data.

jkhuggins

Serious question here ... how far does your "mandate to report the finding of anything you suspect to be illegal" carry? If you incidentally find a pornographic magazine with pictures of very young adults, are you mandated to report that to your superiors on suspicion that the material is child pornography? If you incidentally find a large collection of amateurly labeled DVDs, are you mandated to report that to your superiors on suspicion that the material is a stash of illegally copied DVDs?

I'm wondering how far "anything you suspect to be illegal" really goes. Is it really completely at your discretion? Or have you been given specific guidance regarding certain (suspected) illegal items which, if incidentally found, must be reported? If the latter is true, then you are, in a way, intentionally looking for those items --- even if only in the context of a legal administrative search.

pmocek

Ron, I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you're misunderstanding me and not being intentionally obtuse. To clarify: I'm not specifically discussing your game of fetch that comes after one of your associates sees something interesting. I'm talking about the entire search, beginning with one of you opening a bag or looking inside with an X-ray machine, and ending when you -- TSA staff -- stop examining the bag.

When you -- meaning TSA airport passenger- and bag-searching staff -- search someone's bag, you will "intend" to look for weapons, explosives, and incendiaries, but while you're doing so, you'll also keep an eye out for any of several other things, including drugs, wads of cash, and evidence of credit card fraud or immigrations violations, right? You'll ignore most everything in those bags, but if you find weapons, explosives, incendiaries, drugs, or any of several other things, then you'll take action, right?

When you checkpoint staffers find something that looks to you like illegal drugs, your next step will be exactly the same as it would be if you'd found something that looked like a weapon, right? If while "intending to" search for weapons, explosives, and incendiaries, you find weapons, explosives, incendiaries, drugs, or any of several other things, then you'll stop what you're doing and call a supervisor, right?

It would take some serious mental gymnastics to consider that what you and your associates do is a search for weapons, explosives, and incendiaries, and not a search for drugs, credit card fraud, immigrations violations, and likely a number of other possible indications of wrongdoing.

gsoltso

Let me interject something here. The search is for the specific threat items, period. There is no search for drugs, cash or anything specific that is not on the prohib list. When the bag is screened, we are searching for prohibs ONLY. When something is noticed on the Xray as a possible threat item, it is further screened with a bag check. If during the process of finding that identified item, something else is found (read drugs, child porn, anything that would be construed as a possible violation of law outside of the WEI) then it is referred to the STSOs. There is no bag check for drugs or money. They are not something that is a specific "look for it" item. Sometimes a large amount of cash can appear to be similiar to organic substances (like explosives) and that means it needs to be cleared. Once the money is cleared (meaning that no threat items are found with it) it is allowed to go. If I am clearing an item that looks like a gun or knife or something consistent with bomb components and I find a bag of crack or dope or a handful of kiddie porn, I will refer it to the STSO, period. No confusion, no hemming and hawing, no fishing expeditions or trying to gank the doper - just a referral to the STSO if something that may be illegal is found incidental to the search for a possible prohib.

halls120

Right. I guess your fellow TSO in Fofana thought otherwise.

gsoltso

Stroud (according to the testimony and articles I have read) was wrong. The search is supposed to be for threat or possible threat items. Only if you find something in the course of trying to clear the threat do you move up the chain to the STSO.

knotyeagle

And $4700 in cash/checks (in STL) would be which category of weapons/explosives/pyro?

doober

However, how many of your fellow screeners think the way Stroud did - that they are supposed to search for anything and everything? You have to admit that a lot of your screeners are not too terribly swift upstairs and in all likelihood can't discern procedure as it is supposed to be vs. what they think it is (or would like it to be).

gsoltso

I have not read the statements in this case (at least not the statements of the TSO and LEO involved), and will say that the TSOs language and statements were a case of not following correct procedures, however - I only have the publicized account of the person that had the cash. That means I am unable to make an informed statement on the situation. If the money was (as described) in a lockbox and had organic appearance on the Xray, then a clearing of the container for possible threats would be warranted.

gsoltso

I will not presume to speak for fellow screeners without their direct input. I actually beg to differ about the intelligence factor, some of the smartest people I have worked with are here at TSA (both locally and the blog team). If there is confusion on what the TSOs are supposed to be looking for, then it is the responsibility of management to clarify and retrain where necessary. I hope that if any of you experience something that is blatantly wrong, you would forward the information to the proper TSA components (local airport staff, GotFeedback, and if it is egregious enough your local political structure). TSA can't fix what it doesn't know is wrong, so forward this type of info for us. I know some of you here have had bad experiences with TSOs, specific airports, and policies and even some with the GotFeedback programs as well. I know that, but I still say to keep forwarding the info, it is the only way for things to get to HQ and management so they can work on things that they are unaware of.

knotyeagle

Sounds good, which means of course that the screener was immediately corrected by the supervisor before it got out of hand, didn't it? I mean the container is opened, negotiable units (currency and checks) which could perhaps threaten the Obama stimulus package but not the flight to DCA were discovered. I'm curious why your brethren TSA screener elected to detain the passenger.

And how much of threat is a house phone number that it needs to be divulged? Your brethren lead screener Dominic Grieto at Austin (AUS) was insistent last October 18th that he could not "release me" until I told him my house phone number for an incident report that he wanted to write? He was wrong and I enjoyed him trying.