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.

I think that the thing that you don't see is that by notifying a LEO you have expanded the scope of the search. It doesn't matter whether you as a TSA employee conduct the search or not, the search's scope has been expanded beyond security purposes.

What if a passenger had $11,000 in Euro, Canadian, or even gold bullion? Waste of time.

Indeed it has, and it is no longer a TSA search at this point. It is a police matter being handled by a duly sworn peace officer whose job it is to uphold the law.

So (and I find it amazing that I have to walk you through this) the security search at checkpoints is in actuality a free-wheeling search not limited to airline security. In saner times, this would be seen as unreasonable seatch under the 4th amendment. In the meantime, we are left with people who think they are upholding the law of their country, but without any real understanding of what sort of country the law has created. Pretty sad.

Where in the story does it say they were on an international ticket. Again where does it say that ICE was called in. The money has to be declared as you leave the country. Was I out of the country when Calif. became another country. I was wondering when Arnold was going to do that. As we all know the feebs couldn't find a thief if it had a neon sign around his neck saying arrest me I am a thief.

It it not TSA bussiness to look for procceds of a crime. If they by accident find some drugs or other proceeds the search should stop, and a law enforcement unit should be brought in asap. I have seen ppl carry as much as 2 million dollars across borders. As long as the right paper work is filled out. Who should care how much money you bring in or take out as long as it is not money laundring, My 2 cents

What's pretty sad is that you don't understand that police officers have a job to do, too, and that it is perfectly legal to notify one whenever a suspicious situation arises. Talk to a lawyer if you wish. I encourage you to challenge the legality of these sort of issues. You will find that your rights are still protected by the Constitution; that due process still exists; and that TSA screeners understand their limits. Or you can continue to rave on with your grand conspiracies about how this country is going to hell in a hand basket because screeners dare to notify duly-appointed police officers whenever they come across situations that may exceed the scope of security screening but certainly don't exceed the scope or authority of law enforcement officers.

Frankly, sir, you are beginning to bore me.

That's exactly what happened, Ace.

Carrying money within it self is not a crime. It can not bring down a plane and it should not have been brought to the attention of Law Enforcement. Unless of course you were there to collect your $250.00 bounty. ^

Sounds like a personal problem. Stop reading and take responsibility for how you occupy your time. That much is under your control.

According to the Rocky Mountain account (way back on page 1), the cash-carrying perp was questioned by police after being fingered by the screener but was released after 45 minutes. Then, and it's not clear how, the screener 'learned' he was travelling with another man, by which time news of the robbery was out and the two fit the descriptions.

What that means for the defense I don't know, but the TSA seems to be off the hook for 'poisoned fruit' if the police initially released the suspect. Somehow learning (aka investigating) who was travelling with whom seems to be outside the remit of screeners though, I'd say.