hmmm
 

Anyone think that this shows a different side to things?
kusa story

From the story:
If the screeners involved had heard some sort of law-enforcement bulletin about the robbery and linked that information to suspicious behavior by a suspicious pax with lots of cash, then ^. That's good observation skills.

If the screeners involved had no information about any crime being committed or other suspicious behavior but just assumed that anyone carrying lots of cash should be turned over to the police, then :td:.

Doesn't sound like a direct security risk to me.

But this will just increase the volume for idiotic SSSScreenings on one-way tickets. Today I'm flying from PDX and my first leg is on Horizon. Guess what? The predictable, idiotic SSSS. When I shook my head at the counter, the agent picked up on it and cheerfully explained WHY I got the SSSSpecial treatment.

I must be a bank robber.

I get what studentff is saying about responding to a bulletin, but I'm not sure that even that would make me support the TSA searching people for stuff not related to security. They're not law enforcement officers like the police and the FBI, and shouldn't be conducting those kinds of searches.

Agreed mostly. I don't think they should search for it but if they see something the police have broadcast, they can report it just like private citizens should if they see someone matching the description of a robber walking through the terminal with cash dripping out of a suspicious duffel bag.

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.

It's great to catch bank robbers - but it's not acceptable to me to give up any freedoms, privacy or accept government monitoring in order to make it easier to catch bank robbers. That's really how our Founding Fathers designed our society to work - sometimes it has to be accepted that some bank robbers (or murders, rapists, etc.) will get away with their crime because it's more important to protect the integrity of our system and the freedoms of our way of life than use any means necessary to catch every criminal.

If the screener heard a public police bulletin and recognized the wanted person and reported them as a private citizen, I agree there is nothing wrong with that - it's just good citizenship. As stated in another post, if the screener had no knowledge of the crime and purposely examined the person and their baggage for non-security related suspicious items because they wanted to 'play cop' or claim some reward and just got lucky, that is out of their scope and that behavior must be stopped.

I posted this on the NW forum and I wanted it to be read here since many screener types probably don't read that forum. I believe in praise when it is warranted:

"Most professional secondary I've ever had. Female screener helping wanted to run my shoes or swab them and the male screener said "they don't meet the profile and the machine didn't beep."

I don't understand the "Elite" security line, though. I'm GOLD on NW, which means I can get in the NW side of the terminal quicker. But since I'm flying on a Horizon flight (bought through NW with a NW codeshare) and have to go to terminal A/B/C I CAN'T use the elite security line. The line was only 5-7 minutes long, but I was told that it was up to 32 minutes at some point today. It's spring break, and I have no idea if that number was actually true."

TSA doesn't control the elite line, so I don't have much to say there.

Very well said. ^

According to the Rocky Mountain News story, it looks like the cash was the only reason to question/detain further. :td:

Throughout this forum I read comments that we should spend less time looking at shoes and doing secondaries and instead talk to the passengers to see if there is anything out of order (ala El Al).

Then when the screeners do it, they are critized for going over the limit.

OK then - which is it? Should they search stuff or should they look at behaviors?

Just Curious

Likely, we'll never know how much cash or what the "suspicious items" were. Give me the facts, then I'll render an opinion.

The article tells me that the "interview" happened after searching the bag and finding the cash, a.k.a. "a secondary."

What is the threshhold of cash that a passenger would carry, to mandate the secondary, and to warrant an interview?

Saw this in the RMN article:

So, I guess we can assume the guy was SSSSd because of the one-way ticket, which is probably why the vigilant screener found the cash.

I've got mixed feelings, too. If the airport police had a tip-off that the bad guys were heading to the airport and got the word out with some sort of physical description, etc, OK: Using the TSA to help catch the bad guys is OK.

But, if the didn't know a thing and went what many of us believe is out of bounds for an airport "prohibited items" search, no, this wasn't OK.

From what the article described, this bad guy didn't appear to be the brightest bulb on the Christmas tree, either.

Heck, airport security has been used for decades as convenient chokepoints to catch bad guys. But, it has been the result of good police work. If we've got zealots at checkpoints looking for cash, pot, porn, bootleg CDs, and anything else they deem criminal -- and there's enough evidence on FT to suggest that -- I wonder how many times they have BLOWN cases where the cops were tailing a guy wanting to get to the Big Cheese?

There tend to be many schools of thought here. One school is that screening should do nothing more than and x-ray and WTMD and stop nothing but guns, bombs, knives and other obvious single-usage weapons that are a threat to the aircraft. Such folks tend not to like it when TSA turns pax in for cash, drugs, or other activity that may be suspicious but is not a threat to the aircraft. (Personally I despise how carrying cash can be deemed suspicious and law-enforcement can seize cash with little/no due process. I personally don't carry much cash but I should have the choice to do so if I want.) An example from this school of thought would be people who wouldn't mind sitting next to a known terrorist (even Osama himself) as long as effective security made sure he had no weapons.

Another school of thought would like security to do more behavioral profiling of passengers, ask questions to determine character/intention, etc. rather than focusing exclusively on baggage. They would argue that bad people are the theat, not the bad items. For example, a law-abiding pax with a giant knife is no threat to the aircraft if he doesn't plan to commit a crime.

Both have a good point. But there's probably not a whole lot of overlap between these two schools except that both have complaints about how things are done now.

As an aside, in spite of occasional complaints about impractical posters calling for the end of all screening, there really doesn't seem to be much of a "no screening whatsoever" school here. :)

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.

ah
 

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 :td:

(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?

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.