Didn't TSA agree to change the SOP for searching for large sums of cash so the Beirfeldt case did not go to trial?

Think TSA knew they had a losing case?

No, the SOP was not changed, in the sense we are talking about. It was reworded in stronger words that when you find something that you think is illegal, while looking for WEI, it becomes a LEO matter. But this was as it was before, just stated differently. And it was added to SOP that carrying cash is not illegal.

Why would it become a leo matter? Just more baseless harassment of people without a warrant

Why couldn't it become a LEO matter? We can hand over a "search" the the LEOs any time we want. Now if they agree to take over the search is another matter

LOL, you really ought to in public affairs.

In the same paragraph you first say:

And then you follow it with:

It's like saying your were against it before you were for it.

So you do not think it is possible to say the same thing differently? I would not believe you if you said you do not.

Have you never had to stress to someone what you mean by using stronger words? Of course you have; we all have. We have all at times used different words to say the same thing.

But I guess when TSA does it, or I say it, well, it's foolishness, huh?

But what it really comes down to is this: we all know that many TSOs are not the, uh, brightest, let us say. i would agree. Some TSOs I have met are very intelligent, some struggle to outwit a door-knob. This would be true of any large organization with around 50k employees. Just being honest...

Some TSOs saw that it was written in SOP that if they came across large sums of cash we were to turn it over to a LEO to conduct the search. So some came to believe (as that idiot involved in the $4700 incident) that carrying large sums if cash was somehow illegal.

Personally, it surprises me that people would think so. It dumbfounds me that some believe so, thus I understand why it was not put in the original SOP that carrying cash was not illegal. Now it is put in the SOP that it is not illegal (I'm just being honest here, and yes I know I'm setting myself up for cheap shots from people like halls and BD and a few others - but, hey, you take 'em when you get 'em! ).

So what i said holds: SOP was not changed, we still report large sums of cash to LEOs. So as I said before, no part of SOP has been struck down by any court.

Under what circumstances would you make it an LEO matter if someone was carrying $4700 in cash on their person?

Call it a cheap shot if you want but what part of searching for WEI is reporting money?

You said the SOP wasn't changed, and then you described how it was changed.

You can't have it both ways.

Are "large sums of cash" WEI?

So the SOP has been changed, correct?

It defies logic for you to say "Now it is put in the SOP that it is not illegal" and "SOP was not changed."

Amazing.

It defies logic because of the way in which you purposefully choose to read what I wrote.

I noticed in your first post when you quote me who ignore part of what I wrote:

Originally Posted by SATTSO
No, the SOP was not changed, in the sense we are talking about.

You highlight "the SOP was not changed" but ignore the rest of the sentence. Why is that?

I guess I need to speak a little more clear for you, so I will do so:

the previous SOP had us report large sums of cash to LEOs. The current SOP requires us to report large sums of cash to LEOs. The wording of the SOP changed, and that added that carrying cash is not illegal. But the MEANING or DIRECTIVE of the SOP has nit changed.

But I guess you want to argue semantics if the word "changed", because that's all you can argue? Perhaps you should attempt to argue that the SOP the directs the actions of the TSO has changed, as that would be the actual purpose of what I was talking about? But we know you can't do that, right?

Think is illegal or think might be illegal? The difference is key to the constitutionality here.

You have a bag check. You open the bag and you see a picture of a child having sex with an adult. Clearly illegal and there's no issue with referring it to an LEO.

But now suppose what you see is a picture of a nude child running through a sprinkler. One would hope that's not viewed as pornographic, but maybe some court would, so would you call an LEO?

How about a bag of white powder? It's probably sugar, but could potentially be cocaine. Do you call an LEO?

That second case is particularly troubling. Yes, it would be the LEO doing the search, but they only way they knew to do the search was because of the administrative search. You can make "expectation of privacy" arguments, but it's still questionable.

I wouldn't.

You bring up something interesting: if I open an bag and see a pic that is child pornography, and then as a TSO I continue to search the bag for more child pornography, I have violated the administrative search directives TSA was task to do, and the case against the person would most likely be thrown out of court.

At the same time, if conducting a search and I open a bag and see a picture described above, and at that point I look no further but summon a LEO who continues to search, then that would hold up in court.

The same holds true for ANYTHING I suspect of being illegal. I have to stop my search when I either find something I clearly know is illegal or what I BELIEVE is illegal.

As far as a nude child running through a sprinkler, I think that is a common enough picture (or something similar) that many people have of their children that most would NOT believe it was pornographic (ugh...just realized if a TSO did stumble on a pic like that and didn't report it and it turned out later the child was a victim, there would be a thread here bashing that TSO and TSA for not turning that person over to the LEOs and letting a sexual predator escape, assuming he was later caught. You know that it would happen, don't tell me there wouldn't be a thread here like that! ). So if a TSO did nit think they stumbled upon anything illegal they would have no reason to get a LEO.

As for flour, I guess it depends on if there is any doubt in the TSOs mind. One TSO might be suspicious and summon a LEO, who would take over, and another TSO might not think they witness any illegal activity, so why summon a LEO? Is it possible drugs get through this way? You betcha; do I care if drugs can get through our checkpoints? Not really. And for the record I do NOT support drug use; I hope and wish people know better. Except for advil. Those things work wonders on my oh too common head-aches!

As for a LEO searching a bag, once they take over, several things. They are not under the constraints that TSA is under. They can specifically look for narcotics, cash, fake/stolen IDs. And it's do so as an adminstrative search; the passenger at the point, our courts have rule, have given their conscent by submitting their bag for inspection and they themselves progressing into the checkpoint of their own will.

I think it would be a weak argument to claim that the passenger submitted themselves to being searched by TSA but not the police. I do not think any court would buy that.

Also, it could easily be argued the police at the point they take over the search have reasonable suspicion, as they were told by a federal officer (sceener :P ) that they believed they were witness to something illegal. I very much think our courts would agree with that.

Eh, but these are just my opinion. Yours may differ.

Ah, so now you claim the "meaning" of the SOP hasn't changed. Fine.

What you call "semantics", I call being accurate. If you had started off your trip down SOP lane by saying that the "meaning had not changed," we wouldn't be having this discussion. But that isn't what you initially said, is it?

To paraphrase: the agency puts cash money in the same category as pictures of naked children: high probability that a crime is being committed and LEO referral is required.

Got it.

In other words, the message is still there that "large" (and we still haven't defined "large") is probable evidence of a crime and warrants LEO engagement. That, my friend, goes well beyond the scope of keeping WEI off of planes - it goes to running a dragnet. There is nothing illegal about carrying any amount of cash while traveling (exception: if that cash is going on an international trip AND the proper declarations have not been filed. Still, under the exemption, it doesn't make it a weapon).

Under that kind of policy, shouldn't every TSA screener be reporting medications that are not in prescription-labeled bottle?

I know you're "just following policy" - all I'm trying to do is to clarify that the policy requires reporting of things that are clearly not illegal (unlike child porn which is clearly illegal, or even illicit drugs). The policy is encouraging unconstitutional action by screeners when it comes to referring travelers with large sums of cash to LEO....

Just a question of clarification - is the carrying of >$10k internationally without proper declarations a LEO issue or a CBP issue? I thought the latter, and wonder why would any sum of money be cause for TSA to get involved.

But, I'm probably wrong.