And as far as some saying Screeners are people who wanna be LEO's... well umm.. if 90% wanted to, they can be LEO's no problem. SinceTSA does have a new agency inter-change agreement.

TSA is slowly transitioning from a regulatory agency into a law enforcement agency. Keep aware guys.

Here is a link from TSA website: http://www.tsa.gov/public/interweb/a...onGuidance.doc


Thank you.

That's your opinion, and of course, you're entitled to it. I guess what you're saying is that it is acceptable for public officials to deliberately omit reporting criminal activity to law enforcement. You don't see the ethical aspects involved and believe this is a simple matter of staying in one's "running lane."

I don't know the specific law or regulation that obligates us to report these matters but will tell you that it's written in black-and-white in our SOP. I presume there's a legal precedent to support this, but as I am not a lawyer, I am unable to cite it.

The best example I can cite comes from my experience in the military. Among the different things I did, one of them was investigating espionage cases. In one case, we had strong indications that a soldier was storing classified information on his home computer and were determining whether this was a security matter or, if he was selling, transmitting or delivering that information to a foreign power, an espionage matter. Turned out to be neither. He had file directories in his computer labelled "confidential," "secret" and "top secret" which turned out to be degrees of pornography to include child pornography. Clearly this was not in our jurisdiction since our job was limited to investigating matters of espionage, terrorism, treason, sedition and certain security violations. We preserved the evidence and turned it over the the Army Criminal Investigation Division Command, or "el Cid" for final disposition. I assume that the same logic that obligated us to turn over information discovered during the legal performance of our official duties to the appropriate jurisdiction also applies whenever a screener discovers indications that a crime may have been committed but that crime doesn't fall under the specific security parameters of airport passenger screening. Again, I'm no lawyer.

You assume that only drug dealers carry large amounts of cash. You also missed the part where I said that a police officer, who has the authority to look into suspicious matters, is the one who makes the determination of whether this is a crime or just a peculiarity that a person has so much cash on his person.

As for this so-called bounty you refer to, this is the first time I've ever heard of this. Never heard of it when I was a private contractor screener and certainly not when I joined TSA. I think you're quoting an urban legend.

Yes. Exactly right. That's why we turn it over to the airport police who do have that statutory authority.

I guess we shouldn't confuse wannabe cops with wannabe lawyers.

Bart, clergy, lawyers, doctors, and spouses are specifically authorized not to report criminal activity to law enforcement. The logic behind this is that the damage caused by removing this right would be greater than the benefit of having some additional crimes reported.

I feel that the same is true with the TSA inspections. The argument is that we give implied approval for the TSA to search our luggage, but that approval is for searches which fall into the TSA's jurisdiction -- keeping air travel safe.

By allowing (indeed, requiring) the TSA to report evidence of other kinds of misbehavior we have gone beyong the travel safety question and allowed searches for criminal activity in violation of the Bill of Rights.

What bothers me a great deal about the above document is that it speaks of "alleged" violations. Allege means to assert without proving. Ero, someone needs to prove a violation and give the alleged violator the opportunity to prove him/herself not guilty. But we've heard many times of individuals receiving notices of fines and being denied the opportunity to challenge the alleged violation or at a minimum it being made extremely difficult to get a hearing. Just seems to me that if the word "alleged" is used to describe an activity or an individual then that automatically means that the person/agency doing the alleging must also produce proof and the "alleged" violator be given an opportunity to dispute that proof before any finding of guilt and assessment of penalty.

I also find it very disturbing that one can be fined for having an attitude - attitude is subjective not objective. I don't see how one can be fined because another person does not like the first person's attitude.

You cited exceptions to a rule. The reason behind lawyers and clergy is because it would serve as a double jeapardy against a defendant to confide in them only to have that information used against them in a court of law. However, I don't think you're entirely correct about doctors and spouses. I think the legal exception only applies to lawyers and clergy, but I could be mistaken.

I'll clarify the search rule for you. As long as we're searching for prohibited items and other security-related items, we are performing our jobs as you perceive it. However, the moment we come across something that is not security related, we cannot continue the search. Instead, we have to notify the supervisor who may decide to notify the police if we are unable to complete the search and clear the bag.

I'll throw another twist. If I see what appears to be a bong on the x-ray, I cannot call a bag search. It is not our job to detect drugs or drug-related paraphernalia. However, if I see a pair of scissors or a knife or other prohibited item, I am performing my job. If during the search for the scissors, knife, etc., a screener comes across what appears to be a drug-related item, then he notifies the supervisor; supervisor notifies the LEO, and the LEO makes a determination of whether or not is it evidence or indications of a drug-related crime. It is the LEO's decision to make not ours.

This works the other way around, too. Had a young lady who did have a pipe and baggie with what appeared to be some residue of some sort of weed or possible drug. We followed procedure and the LEO let her go. Now this young lady was quite attractive, wore a miniskirt, had a low-cut blouse that showed off a lot of cleavage, and was waving those twins in front of the police officer every chance she got. Some of my screeners thought that perhaps this was the reason he didn't file charges. The more practical explanation is that residue is not enough to convict; it won't even make it to the charge sheet; it would have been a waste of time to even pursue it. The officer probably enjoyed the show she provided, but I'm confident that he was looking at it from a matter of prosecutability instead of getting any cheap thrills from the impromptu T&A show. What I told my screeners is that once we hand the matter over to the LEO, it's his call. We don't have any jurisdiction or legal interest in the matter.

Except, in this case, we aren't even talking about criminal activity. It is not against the law to carry a large amount of cash. Staying in one's lane, in this case, is extremely appropriate.

And that's for a police officer to determine not a screener. That is my point.

It may be up to an LEO to determine that fact, but it is NOT up to the screener to report it. Using your "logic", the screener has already made a determination that carrying a large sum of cash is suspicious.

Since the TSA has been unable to hire screeners capable of determining 1" of thickness, I seriously doubt its capabilities to hire screeners capable of determining anything suspicious.

A Screeners job is to look for threats to an aircraft, PERIOD. Cash is not a threat to an aircraft. Sounds to me that not only were these morons wanabee cops, but they were envious that someone had that much cash to carry with them.

Ugh...

Let's not stray from the topic.

My opinion is: Large sums of cash alone shouldn't cause any screener to raise an eye. If I choose to carry large amounts of cash - that's my business. As a previous poster mentioned...cash can't bring down an airliner. Just my 2c :)

-Chris

If you, in fact know, then tell us. Or is it a big TSA secret?

I see the ethics and I think the bigger ethical problem is the unconstitutional search for items not related to air security.

No, I don't assume that at all. What I do assume is that, based on way too many reports, law abiding citizens get caught in the "war on drugs" dragnet too often and many times aren't able to get their money back. If they do it's not without a huge (i.e. expensive) legal battle.

It was mentioned in the statement of facts in the decision in United States v. $124,570 of U.S. Currency:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/script...710222&exact=1

I think this text is what you were referring to. Took me a few seconds to find it so I'm posting it. (My understanding is that court records are public; so no copyright issue like with posting full news stories)

Note that the passenger in this case was on a domestic flight SEA-LAX; there is absolutely nothing illegal about carrying $124,000 in cash undeclared on a domestic flight. Yet security got a bounty for turning him in.

It is shameful that there is or ever was a policy of giving rewards for turning in perfectly legal activity.

I have a few comments from a former prosecutor's perspective. Most states and the federal rules of evidence recognize statutory or common law privileges that the suspect may invoke. The classic privileges are those that have been mentioned already: attorney-client, priest-penitent (confer O.J. Simpson and Rosey Grier), doctor-patient, and spousal. The general rule is that these privileges are narrowly construed because they prevent relevant evidence from being adduced. However, the interests protected by these privileges, full disclosure to a trusted individual, are deemed important enough that the operation of the privilege outweighs the unavailability of the evidence.

I think that Dovster was expressing the same concept that I advanced several days ago. TSA searches should be considered to be restricted in scope. Fourth Amendment jurisprudence is full of examples of searches that can start off as legal but cross a line. Because TSA screeners are agents of the government, if they cross that line, subsequent searches and evidence thereby obtained may be suppressed under the "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine. That is why criminal defense attorneys and judges earn the big bucks.

Finally, in my home state, the babe with the pipe and baggie could have been prosecuted. Possession of drug paraphernalia is a misdemeanor. If a lab test discloses residue of a constrolled substance on a pipe, the state has made a prima facie case. However, police and prosecutors have a great deal of discretion in deciding whether to charge a suspect. A miniskirt and nice rack could tip the scales.

re: the $124,000 case I posed above:

It's actually a really interesting case; if anyone has access to the full decision it would be great if you could post it.

The guy was traveling with $124,000 and was nabbed by the screeners who turned him over to law enforcement. Law enforcement promptly confiscated the money, claiming that it was drug money. He said he was trying to "ransom a painting" - his friend's painting was stolen and he was going to use the money to get it back. He declined to give the friend's name or any other info about the transaction, IIRC.

Customs or whomever found traces of drugs on the money (and it came out during the case that like 90% of all money has traces of drugs on it or something like that) so, based on that "evidence" alone they wanted to keep the money permanently.

It raises a lot of interesting issues on a few topics.

well
 

What if a screener opened a bag and found a human head? What then? Ignore it? I think not. IT is the same as cash. Both require more investigation to see if a crime is being committed. I should think that there should be someone out there that is thankful for the fact that the property was returned and that there are two less bad guys out roaming around.

ah
 

But you would have to leave information with the police that would say who you are and why you believe what you are reporting. If you refuse then it is not going to be investigated. IF it is investigated and found to be false then you will be charged with a crime.

what
 

And I happen to know them and they are not. Therefore your opinion is just that, an opinion.

what a crock
 

You are just an opinionated cheap shot artist. Want some cheese with that whine?

Ad Hominem. You could have addressed the point rather than the person.

Some of us opinionated cheap shot artist whiners actually care about the process, and we aren't simply focused on the result. Compare that to some ex-cop, unemployed tech sector folks are who couldn't find anything better than the TSA so now they fight the war on terror at the airport.

I'd rather some bad guys go free rather than have every American treated like a criminal. It surprises me not at all that you feel differently.

He/She has NO idea.

Is a Human Head a prohibited item? If not, then it should not be reported. You people are SCREENERS, not LEO's.

The sooner you admit that to yourself, the sooner your inferiority complex will stop hurting.

I never said it was not an opinion. However, it is an opinion base din the facts of this case. The facts of this case state that the screener are morons.

Oh come on! Would you rather have another 9-11 than subject everyone to the most thorough search possible?

Look - I accept that many of you feel the TSA process is far from perfect, but I would like to add my perspective.

I am not a US citizen, but travel to the States frequently (around 12 times a year - plus numerous internal US flights). I actually prefer the level of 'security' (read 'reassurance') that I'm given by the TSA. When I get on board a flight in the US I actually feel safe. I can't say that about flights from some other airports in other countries (including, at times, the UK).

If you're a smart, highly organised and intelligent terrorist, intent on bringing a plane down, there a plenty of ways of doing that and you're going to find a way.

But what about the one-offs, the weirdos and whackos? Many of them are a biscuit short of the pack and enhanced security might just weed them out. I'm all for that. Some people really are stupid enough to take things with them which will get picked up by the TSA.

Being British, I would certainly question why someone was walking around with >10,000 cash. We just don't see that as normal. I would want someone to question that. In the UK, this kind of money would often come from illegal transactions (selling illegally imported cigarettes or pirated CDs or from vice etc).

Carrying a lot of cash isn't illegal. But it's fairly stupid. Stupidity like that should raise suspicion. Suspicious activity should be investigated.

Some of the 'rules' being implemented are reactionary. But what would you differently? I watched a programme recently recreating the final few minutes of the AA flight on 9-11. Just watching as the cabin dividers were closed made me cringe (knowing the problems this would cause a few minutes later). If I was a government employee, going in to work the next day and tasked with stopping this ever happening again, I would have mandated the removal of curtains plus a raft of other stuff at checkpoints etc. And yes, the rules keep changing, but that is a combination of lessons continually being learned and new situations arising.

Back to the TSA and their duties and what they should be allowed to report.

If a mom or dad was walking through a TSA checkpoint with a child, and the child looked under duress, I would want the TSA to report that to someone. What happens if that child was being taken away from its other parent? If it was a kidnapping (removal of child against a court order), I would be the first person to ask 'how could they have got through all the airport checkpoint without someone asking the child if something was wrong?

On earlier comments in this thread... the judgment in the legal case above seems to be fairly clear... as long as the reason for the search was for security (rather than to make $250) then whatever is found is subject to normal procedures.

Back to my personal experiences. I don't really mind having to take off my shoes - it takes a minute more of my time. I have been 'SSSSd' three out of the last 16 flights. It delayed me a few extra minutes. The TSA was always polite. In one case, it saved me 10 minutes because the SSSS queue was empty, compared to a huge regular line.

I don't mind my boarding pass being checked every few minutes. I was in Budapest recently and my identity was not checked a single time post immigration. No check before boarding the aircraft. I felt pretty uncomfortable that in reality - anybody could have been on that aircraft which would be flying over central London. The more check the better.

Just my two cents in support of the TSA, and probably a little off topic! (but I thought they needed some support :) )

Regards WG

So if you report me for having $10,001 on me and it turns out I'm not breaking the law I can charge you with a crime?

I never said I was going to tell them your watch was stolen. I was going to tell them your watch might be stolen (it might be, how the hell do I know?), just like you'd tell the cops I might be doing something wrong by carrying around money.

Oh man...

You sir, just sparked WW3.

This is close to what I was thinking of doing. With a reasonably small amount of money, I could make enough bricks to appear as if I am carryone well over 10K. If I am detained by a screener for carrying this, I would be well within my rights to press charges against them for falsely accusing me of a crime.

Well you may feel better - i.e. be reassured - but that's not the same thing as actually having security. I'd prefer that stop wasting time and money on window dressing that doesn't improve airport security.
And there are plenty of legal reasons someone might have that much money on them. But it's not really your business to question it. I might wonder why you're carrying around an outdated cell phone, but that's not my business either. Carrying cash isn't in and of itself suspicious at all.
Carrying around an outdated cell phone is stupid. It's big and heavy. Next time I see someone with one I'm going to turn them in. They could be a danger to themselves :rolleyes:
The TSA's job is not to make sure that kids aren't kidnapped. I'd call the cops if it looked like something were wrong, sure, but that's something that would be publicly obvious without me having to search through people's bags/person.
You're welcome to take them off if you want to. That doesn't mean the rest of us should be forced to.
Why? It does nothing to improve security and probably distracts from the real mission of keeping us safe.
Huh?

How does checking your ID improve security? Does your ID identify whether you're a terrorist or not?

This is the kind of pointless window dressing I despise. It does nothing to improve security. It might make you feel better, but it doesn't make us any safer so it's a waste of time and money. :mad:

Doppy - I understand your points and see where you're coming from - there are many sides to this issue.

The ID checking thing - if nobody ever checks it - it is an easy way to get somebody aboard an aircraft so long as they have a boarding pass (at BUD it could have been anybody). At least if there are checks, or random checks, it might deter one of the weirdos... that's all I'm saying.

I know security screening isn't perfect, but I'd rather have the TSA (even with the SSSSing) than security at a lot of other airports.

Regards

WG

The TSA is NO better than any other countries security. In fact it is a LOT worse than european security.

As for the idiotic ID checking, that has ZERO effect on security. Anyone with the intelligence of a 12 year old can obtain fake ID.

ID checking is a joke. Fake ID's are a dime a dozen. Go to any large university in the states and a large percentage of the 18-20 year old students will have fake ID's. ID checks do nothing to improve security. The only real benefit is revenue protection for the air carriers to stop the selling of un-used tickets.

The SSSS (selectee) system is a joke likewise and a waste of time and resources. The time, money, and manpower spent on multiple ID/BP checks and screening selectees who have already passed primary screening could be spent on something useful such as screening cargo or closing some of the other backdoors.

The only time someone should be subject to additional screening is if they fail primary screening. A passenger on a one-way ticket, a codeshare, or heaven forbid a passenger re-routed because of a flight cancellation does not make them a security risk.

The TSA, primarily at the top levels, is a disgusting, incompetent, unamerican, money hungry buearcracy driven by fear & politics.

Papers, Please?

SDF_Traveler

Folks, let’s tone down the name-calling and finger-pointing a notch or two, OK?? This thread is interesting and I’d like to be able to keep it open.
Thanks for your cooperation.

________________________________

Cholula

Travel Safety/Security Forum Moderator

LHR is keenly aware of their possiblity for a terrorist attack. Why are their security procedures less invasive and do not make you feel like you've been violated, yet nothing has happened? Remember all those BA flights being cancelled in December 2003 and Janauary 2004? LHR hasn't starting groping people or making people take their shoes off since then.

Same thing for CDG, where Richard Reid originated.

Those two airports, for starters, are doing something that the US airports are not doing. Why can't the TSA start employing some of those measures?

I actually think the "hero" TSA agent might be called into criminal court as a witness for the defense. Or, at the very least for a motion to throw out the conviction on Fourth Amendment grounds. Then, the TSA agent might need to hire an attorney, and I see little chance the TSA, despite this being "on the job," will foot the legal bill.

Huh? Carrying a human head is almost certain indication of a crime. In fact, I'm pretty sure carrying a human head is a crime in most jurisdictions that have rules about proper disposal/treatment of human remains. I expect TSA to report to a LEO if they see pax carrying a human head in carry-on. If I see one of my fellow pax carrying a human head, I'll get a cop myself.

Carrying cash is not the same because it is not a crime or even likely indicator of a crime. I might support the idea of a screener reporting someone carrying cash hidden in their socks/shoes because it is acting suspicious, but if a pax has a brick of cash in their briefcase/bag and is not doing anything else to raise eyebrows, they should be left alone.

The stupidity of the cash reporting seizure rules amazes me, and it may concern me personally soon. Sometime in the next year I will be moving. When that happens, I will need to move my personal coin-collection and gold/silver-bullion coin collection. Somewhere between $4,000-$8,000 worth of coins depending on how you value them; nothing huge but enough to raise suspicion (or look valuable) to an untrained eye. If it weren't for the possibility of TSA going wacky, my first choice of how to move the collection would be on a flight in my carry-on bags (vs. mailing it registered to someone at my destination). But I'm concerned about doing that because some hero-wannabe screener might report me to a LEO. Jeesh.

I'm not as extreme as some posters on this issue. If screeners see evidence of a crime in the course of a normal security search (weapons, material matching a police bulletin, human head, even drugs), then I think they should call a LEO. But I don't think TSA should be searching specifically for these items. And I really don't think they should be calling LEOs to report perfectly legal activity.

Actually I'm more worried that these bad guys will get off on a technicality because a smart lawyer will argue the TSA shouldn't have reported the guys if the only suspicion TSA had was carrying cash. The sad thing is that left to legitimate means, smart law-enforcement might very well have caught the guys using good old-fashioned legal police work.

I really hate it when criminals get off for reasons like this, but in this case I'll have to root for the defense and a reign-in on overzealous TSA internal-border-control checkpoints.

When TSA screeners search your bag, they are not conducting a search looking for criminal evidence. You have given consent to a security search which is aimed at looking for prohibited or restricted items. Once a screener encounters a situation that goes beyond the scope of a security search, and yes, large amounts of cash, drug paraphernalia are items specified by the SOP as reportable items, then a certified peace officer trained in evidentiary procedure and authorized to exercise law enforcement judgment is notified to either assume responsibility for the search or declare no law enforcement interest. TSA searches are restricted in scope as you point out. What I think you don't see or perhaps refuse to see is the legitimacy of notifying the appropriate authority who has the legal jurisdiction to resume the search but for criminal evidence as opposed to security prohibited items.

I don't disagree with your final point at all. I think the reality of the situation was that the airport LEO probably understood that this particular matter wouldn't warrant much interest from the San Antonio Police Department or district attorney's office based on previous experiences. I think that technically he probably could have pursued the matter but chose not to because there are other more urgent police matters than small traces of possible drug residue inside a baggie or on a pipe. We don't have to agree with how the police officer handled the situation, but I think we do agree that he has the authority to exercise this type of discretion. And that was my point to my screeners.