However, it is not suspicion related to security and it is completely outside your statutory authority. The quotes you gave demonstrate that.

What cheap shot? These screeners are obviously morons who WISH they were LEO's.

No. I did not have to declare the amount on the form; however, I volunteered the amounts and stated that I have well less than US$10,000 cash on my person/belongings and that if I did possess said amount or higher on person then I would have declared it in compliance with federal law. He then just leafed through my passport (looking at the stamps I guess) and said "have a safe flight."

.... and within less than a few minutes, I was on my merry way to board the plane with a cabin that was still mostly empty.

This was the only flight where I've personally experienced ICE-types on an outbound US flight.

Tarp
 

The standard for criminal prosecution is probable cause! Probable cause is defined as those facts or circumstances that when viewed by THE AVERAGE REASONABLE AND PRUDENT PERSON, would lead that person to believe that a crime is being planned, committed or was committed. (No pot shots here about TSA please.) Discovering the fruits of a crime obligate any person to report the incident. Therefore if you have 10k in cash in your bag, you may be violating a federal law and the incident warrants further investigation. I know of another incident at DEN where a guy had 20k in cash in his socks. When ICE was called to check on him, he was found to be a person of interest in money laundering. The fact is that TSA is under a moral and probable legal obligation, not to mention duty to report what they believe to be a criminal event, even if that event is not a threat to airline security.

nope
 

I was a LEO for nearly 10 years. I dont have any aspirations to become one again. You have voiced an opinion here. There are some very intelligent people that are employed as screeners. I know one that has a PHD. Therefore it is very narrow minded of you to make a categorical statement like that.

That watch you're wearing may be stolen. Next time I see you, I'm going to call the police and report a *possible* stolen watch. It's a crime to be in possession of stolen property, you know.

There could be contraband in your house. I think the police should do a preemptive strike a search your house today. Oh, wait, that would run afoul of the Constitution, just like these TSA searches of people that have nothing to do with air security.

Specifically, which law are you breaking by carrying $10k onto a domestic flight?

... and along that same line of reasoning, aren't a majority of passengers at most airports in the US travelling domestically?

If so, then isn't it likely that the majority of persons carrying $10,000+ should be presumed to be flying domestically?

In any event, at what point does someone break the discussed law? What happens if the passenger after having cleared the TSA checkpoint merely decided to not fly. Then what? ;)

Having a PHD does not automatically preclude a person from being a moron, it might mean they are simply good at taking tests. Besides, I didn't say that all screeners are morons, that is not true. I'd say that at least 10 to 20 across the country would fall outside of that category.

What I stated was that the screeners in this instance were morons and wanabee cops.

I'll say this again and type real slow so that MAYBE you will be able to follow along:

Cash is NOT a prohibited item, thus the TSA should not be concerned with it. PERIOD.

Criminal prosecution isn't part of your job description. Neither is nosiness in matters that do not relate to security.

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.