I'm betting this has been discussed before, I don't recall seeing it:

Have not cases of searches been thrown out of court as illegal, i.e., your car is stopped because of a broken tail light, the police officer searches the vehicle and finds drugs (you're not intoxicated) - a drug possesion charge is thrown out.

What's the difference between that and the TSA who are not law enforcement finding a wad of money on an alleged robber - they're not charged with looking for money or drugs. Does anyone know of any challenges to TSA searches through the courts?

AFAIK, the screeners didn't do a security interview (ala El Al) where they determined the guy was a bank robber, so I don't know what this comment has to do with this thread.

This has been going on since before the TSA. I believe most cases have held that it's fine for them to collar you if the screeners find something, though I don't think there's been a substantiative Supreme Court decision on the issue, AFAIK.

If screeners would do this to protect security of airline travelers, that would be one thing. However, these screeners were not at this point involved in travel security, but were investigating a crime unrelated to travel. I think that any true aviation security expert would say that only large amounts of cash, absent other factors such as a lack of any bags, is not an indicator of someone intending to commit a terrorist act.

The interesting question is whether the evidence, the cash, will be admissible if defendant files a motion to suppress as a result of a claimed illegal search. I know that Bart, among others, will point out that passengers are deemed to consent to a search of their bags and persons before boarding a plane. However, I think that many courts would place limits on the scope of that type of search, to avoid fishing expeditions. By way of analogy, searches during traffic stops can only be for items within the "wingspan" of the driver and passengers in the car, absent consent. Without consent, the police cannot look for contraband in the trunk that is not immediately accessible. I seem to recall one case where the stopping officer called for a drug-sniffing dog and detained the driver until the canine officer arrived. I do not remember the length of time that passed, but I think that the reviewing court suppressed the evidence. I will have to practice my Westlaw skills to look for this citation and fact pattern.

I prefer not to think of these schools of thought as lacking overlap, but rather complementary. X-ray/scanner/WTMD should spot obvious weapons, such as guns, knives, explosives. But the 9/11 hijackers did not have obvious weapons. Boxcutters were not prohibited at that time. Behavioral profiling has a role. A dedicated terrorist can improvise, using many common, permitted items as weapons - pencil, shoelaces, belt, broken wine bottle, etc.

Here is a scenario: several terrorists simultaneously take hostage several passengers and flight attendants in first class, using a combination of pencils, shoelaces, broken wine bottles, etc. This flight does not have any federal air marshals onboard, or worse, the FAMs are taken hostage and bad guys seize their firearms. They threaten to kill hostages unless air crew opens cockpit door and surrenders control of the flight deck. The terrorists have a fairly strong defensive position, in the front of the plane with their backs to the cockpit door. What happens then? I would guess that some hostages would be injured or killed before the rest of the passengers overpower the scum and ideally rip them limb from limb. Current TSA protocol would not prevent this sort of attack. However, we know that the shoes of grandmothers, frequent flyers, and little children will not contain explosives.

Cash is NOT a prohibited item, thus these yahoo cop-wannabee screeners overstepped their bounds.

When, oh when is the public going to see this joke of an agency for what it is and demand that Congress disband it?

Wow. Why the cheap shots? Did this event impact you? The fact is that carrying over 10k in cash without declaring it for export is illegal. If TSA runs into that amount of money then they cannot ask the passenger where they are going with it. They cannot check to see if the passenger has a connecting flight out of the country. Therefore the LEO and ICE are called to continue the investigation. That is what happened here.

The moment they prevent or delay passage because of the cash, they are overstepping their bounds. Call a LEO if you want to, but the LEO should catch up with the passenger in the secure area because you have no authority to delay someone on any suspicion unrelated to security.

Prevent or delay? That term is vague. I can tell you that when a selectee bag is being checked, it can take a long time. Therefore since ICE is stationed at our airport. They get there before TSA is done checking the bag. Also we have LEO on the check points, IT takes them 20 seconds to get to us when we call for one. Therefore TSA isnt delaying anyone. I have seen people in the selectee lane get what amounts to a thread count on their clothing for being high risk. That was a bag check that lasted over 45 minutes.

Just to give this some perspective:

TSA screeners are not law enforcement officers. We are not peace officers. We are not police officers. Instead, we are federal security officers whose specific task is to screen people and property on public transportation. Currently, we are limited to commerical airlines at some 450 airports throughout the nation.

With respect to consensual searches: like it or not, you are subject to federal laws. Don't have to agree with the law, but you do have to follow the law. You cannot pick and choose which laws you will obey and which ones you will ignore. You may challenge the law in court, but that's another matter. You may petition your legislators to change the law, and that again is another matter.

US Code Title 49, section 44901 specifies that:

US Code Title 49 section 44902 addresses the consensual issue:

Airport security screening is nothing new. It's been around for a very long time. Eastern Airlines was the first to implement metal detector screening in 1969 in response to the flurry of hijackings of airliners to Cuba. It wasn't until 1973 that the FAA made it mandatory for all airlines to screen passengers and their carry-on baggage. It wasn't until after the 1988 Lockerbie bombing that US airports began efforts to screen checked baggage and implemented procedures to match passengers with their baggage.

My point here is that it should be no surprise to anyone in this country or even this planet that when you go to an airport, there will be a security checkpoint. And when you place your carry-on property on a conveyor belt to the x-ray machine, that machine is going to use radiation beam technology to allow the operator to view the contents inside of your bag. No one is forcing you to place the bag on the conveyor belt; you certainly have the right to refuse to submit it for x-ray inspection but then you will not be permitted to go to the gate. This has been upheld by various court decisions as a valid and legal security principle. You can always avoid this scrutiny by simply choosing not to fly on a commercial airliner. You may not like it, but the courts have ruled that you do not have a constitutionally guaranteed right to fly. "A rich man can choose to drive a limousine; a poor man may have to walk. The poor man's lack of choice in his mode of travel may be unfortunate, but it is not unconstitutional."

As for this specific situation:

Screeners look for basically three types of items.

1) Dual-use "weapons." These are items that may not be specifically designed as menacing weapons but can potentially be used as such. Until 9/11, box cutters were regarded as nothing more than utility tools. You don't have to agree with the TSA's prohibited items list of dual-use weapons, but I think there's agreement that these are the items we commonly encounter at security checkpoints.

2) Obvious weapons. Talking about guns, bombs, grenades and other items specifically designed and specifically intended as weapons.

3) Hazardous materials. This is relatively new and was implemented in 1996 by the FAA after two airline crashes involved explosions resulting from hazardous materials being transported.

When a screener locates a prohibited item, like a pair of scissors or leatherman tool, the passenger is given the option to either dispose of the item or surrender the item to TSA screeners who will then dispose of it. When a screener discovers hazardous material, that item is confiscated unless the owner can dispose of it by having it removed from the airport. This is typically done when non-flying companions of the passenger are still at the airport lobby and agree to remove the item. Otherwise, it is confiscated by the airlines. In practice, we confiscate these items and then turn them over to the airlines. If we were to stick to the letter of the law in this instance, then you would be delayed until an airline ground security coordinator could be located and respond to the call. With the amount of hazmat we encounter every day, this would be impractical and frustrating for both passengers and screeners.

When a screener detects an obvious weapon, the airport police take over. This is when all the 4th Amendment principles apply. Keep in mind, though, that there is a very fine line here. The carry-on has been offered for a security search; the screener has detected a suspicious item that goes beyond his authority; the item is turned over to the law enforcement officer who has the authority to determine whether or not a crime has been committed; the burden is then on the police officer to conduct the search in accordance with the law. You can argue the various scenarios that result from this sequence, but the point here is that nothing has been done to violate the owner's constitutional protection against unreasonable searches and seizures. When the owner presented the carry-on for screening, he assumed a risk that any illegal item inside the bag or bags was going to be discovered. It's that simple.

Is there anything illegal about having large amounts of cash? Not at all. However, screeners are trained to identify suspicious discoveries. And not everyone carries huge amount of cash, so yes, stacks of bills tucked inside of a carry-on bag is a suspicious discovery. The matter is usually turned over to the airport police to handle. IF the passenger is flying internationally, then the passenger needs to declare any cash over $10,000. Do any of you expect a screener to actually count the cash? I would certainly hope not. I don't want my screeners put in a position where they may be accused of stealing that money. I've experienced situations when what looked like a lot of money, possibly over $10,000 turned out to be only $3,000 or $4,000 in cash. Again, hard to tell when all you see are stacks of $20 bills wrapped in rubber bands. I've seen situations when a person just finished a business deal and prefered to carry the cash on his person because he didn't trust electronic transfers. Nothing criminal about that, and nothing was done to this person. We reported it to the airport LEO, and he made the determination that there was nothing illegal about that unusual situation. Again, it's the LEO's job to determine if a crime has been committed not TSA's. All we do is report what we are trained to report to the airport LEO.

Originally Posted by bocastephen
A good result yielded from a bad process does not mean we should praise the process. The role of the TSA screener must be focused only on preventing the introduction of restricted items onto aircraft or sterile areas of the airport. Period. It should not be widened to include searches for drugs, cash, illegal aliens, wanted felons, etc...we do not want out airports turned into virtual borders.

We don't look for drugs, cash, illegal aliens, wanted felons, etc. We look for the things I mentioned above. However, when we encounter a situation that appears suspicious, we turn the matter over to the airport law enforcement officer who has the training and authority to determine if a crime has been, is being or is going to be committed.

Speaking in generalities here to address the news story. I think it's great that two criminals were caught. I don't necessarily agree with giving TSA the credit; however, I don't see it as a good result yielded from a bad process. I see it as a lucky coincidence. Nothing more. Nothing less.

Exactly...so there is no law being broken by someone carrying 10K+ cash with them while traveling domestically....and therefore there is no reason nor obligation for TSA to call the LEO or ICE. Period. If the cash is seen, it should be ignored by the TSA and the passenger permitted to proceed. It is none of the TSA's business. If your only reasoning for calling the police is because you suspect the passenger could leave the country with it, the reasoning is flawed. You have no evidence that the passenger has not already filled out the proper form if they are leaving the country, nor do you have any evidence they are actually leaving the country and thus not breaking the law.

It is your job to screen passengers for prohibited items to ensure the safety of air travel - it is NOT your job to screen for cash, drugs, warrants, unpaid child support, overdue library books or anything else that falls outside the narrow scope of securing the aircraft and terminal sterile area from the introduction of a prohibited item.

Bart, in response to your last paragraph, I have to disagree - it is not your job to turn anything over to law enforcement that is not a clear violation of a specific aviation security statute, such as the CFRs that you mentioned. So, if there is no gun/knife/blade/bomb in the bag, then regardless of the cash, cocaine, marijuana, porn, or whatever, you have no right or obligation to involve anyone from law enforcement in the matter.

A few weeks back I was flying out of the US on KLM and on the bridge were several friendly ICE personnel. For the first time on an outbound flight from the US, one fellow flagged me over and he asked for my passport and if I was carrying money out of the country. I said I was carrying a certified check and some amount of dollars, pounds, euros, and various crowns that kept the total at well less than $10,000 unless he wants to give me his money too and then a form to fill out declaring the amount.

I do think these rules are largely outdated and cover too low a dollar amount in any event. Furthermore, whose business should it generally be -- besides our own --regarding where our money is being taken to/from (especially if it's not being used cont? No one else's .... but then again Big Brother is an insecure sibling.

Some people get a little upset when their constitutional rights - or rights of others - are trampled. When that happens, we all lose

And how is any of this related to air security?

How is a stash of cash "suspicious" as far as air security is concerned? If anything, it should subject the person to less scrutiny - why would they blow up a plane with all of that money onboard?

The TSA's job is to keep us safe from terrorists, not drugs, money launderers, rich people or professional gamblers. Any actions outside of this are a distraction that make us less safe.

The pax may try to take money out of the country. But that's not the TSA's business. Your people shouldn't be looking for large sums of money, nor should they be turning people in for it.

This kind of stuff is a sickening breach of the 4th amendment

(Not to mention the awful drug-related seizure laws that have cost plenty of innocent, law abiding people their cash.)

The Feds used to pay a $250 bounty to screeners who turned in people who had money or drugs on them. This was before the TSA. Do they still do that?

Did you still have to declare the amount, despite it being less than $10,000?