Corrected: Well, that and illegally requiring that you show government issued Photo-ID to a government "officer" or agent in order to be permitted to travel domestically.

Being pulled aside from the screening process for the simple fact of having some money does not occur on every single person. Of those that are pulled aside, questions are asked by law enforcement and a judgment call is made very quickly.

As far as a TSA document. Like I said before, it's a TSA document just because it's TSA's responsibility now. Before it was a FAA document. I haven't seen anyone bashing them for it decades before TSA came along.

That's why I said possibly.

Do you honestly think a TSO is doing cartwheels because he believes he discovered some illegal pills in a passenger's bag? It's called doing his job. They fly on commercial aircraft just like you and I. I have rarely seen a TSO get "excited" for discovering something that brings LEO attention. Again, it may vary from airport to airport, but I just don't see what you describe where I am.

You sure tote water well!

You hit the nail on the head. His job is airport security-- his job is not to help you do your job.

A TSO's job is NOT airport security. A TSO's job is to prevent weapons, incendiaries and explosives from entering the sterile area or aircraft.

I suppose that's more accurate.

Anyway, I think my point was clear.

The point was clear to me but I just wanted to eliminate any wiggle room. Sorry I was not meaning to sound harsh.

Last I checked, there is a presumption of innocence until proved guilty in a court of law.

Not really. The money is confiscated. THe decision to confiscate/forfeit was not made by a court - it was made by a occifer. The person who owned it has to petition to get it back. Guilty until he proves his innocence.

Yes, I am opposed to seizures under admiralty laws. For just that reason.

Oh, and part of the problem is that in many places the police department that makes the seizure is 'rewarded' by keeping part of the spoils. But there is no corresponding penalty if the seizure was found to be improper. The entire burden is on the person from whom the money was seized - he/she has to petition, he/she lose use of the money during the court proceedings, he/she may be identified publically as a perp - even if they aren't. That is known in the real world as being a conflict of interest. There is a very, very strong incentive to seize now and ask questions later.

Hmmm - I carry melatonin and some vitamins fairly frequently on trips. They're in baggies. Sometimes they're buried in an available pocket inside my bag. Guess I can end up in a heap 'o trouble? :td::td::mad:

Images of Barney Fife dancing in my head... :rolleyes:

Ever since I posted in the LH forum, I have had a pretty thick skin. :p

A sense of humo(u)r after all.

I suspect some local police departments come to depend on this stolen I mean seized money to balance their budgets. I read of local departments confiscating hundreds of thousands of dollars year after year. The conflict of interest is too tempting. The police are addicted to drug money just like a heroin addict is addicted to his drugs.

They arrest a local drug dealer and confiscate $200,000. They make a "procedural mistake regarding evidence" on the arrest and the dealer does not get convicted because the police do not want him convicted. They want him back on the street. Six months later, they pop him again and keep another $200,000. The dealer is happy, being out of jail and in business. The "loss due to stolen cash" is a cost of doing business no more than if he was bribing the cops. The cops get to say "We're not getting bribed", but the drug money ends up in their pocket just the same. What's the difference? None that I can see.

I believe many police departments would not "win the war on drugs" even if it was possible. The want it to continue to justify large and ever larger departments and to be able to steal cash from drug dealers when they need some cash. The cops are addicted to the drug cash and will not kick the habit.

IF confiscating cash is allowed, the department making the confiscation should NOT be allowed to keep the cash. Pass a law requiring it to be donated to the local United Way. Do not let the cops be rewarded for questionable cash steals.

I'm sure SS31 will disagree. Oh, well. Happy New Year. :)

I am as serious as a deputy with a bullet in his shirt pocket. ;)

Questionable cash steals? I can tell you have many years of LE experience under your belt. I sit back and chuckle at people like you who only know our job from the inaccuracies the media decides to air at 5 & 6pm. If you worked a day in our shoes, you might have something accurate or meaningful to contribute to the conversation. Oh wait, you caught me, my goal in life is to seize money from drug dealers and watch them go free so I can do it over again. We're all as corrupt as the slum we're taking it from. Get a clue.

On a side note, my agency has no officers who are part of the DEA and we do not get a penny from the seizures.

You, Ari and others still want to ignore the fact that this type of action has been going on for years, and it will continue. TSA is just a scapegoat because the checkpoints are currently under their control rather than the FAA. Like I said before, I don't recall any forums bashing FAA and/or the contract security companies who were doing the exact same thing long before TSA came along. It's just easier to go after them because of the dislike by you and others here at FT.

Not that it's enforced greatly, but many states make it unlawful to carry prescription meds in anything but the containers they were issued in. I wouldn't necessarily call it a "heap 'o trouble," but yes, out on the street you can be arrested for it.

By policy, he is supposed to report suspicious items discovered during an administrative (and consensual) search. Again, whether you believe the policy is bologne is another question. Take that up with the suits in DC, but as far as the TSO, they're doing what they were told. You guys are wanting to punish the messenger.

Did you say something??

Why are some people out of their mind obsessed with the idea that having a large amount of cash is suspicious or comes from drug dealing or some other illegal activity? Last time I checked it was not illegal to be rich or eccentric in the USA. If being either is reasonable grounds for arousing suspicion then we are about 14 million cops under strength to deal with the work load.

A. Over $10K must be reported.
B. If you work at the location in your profile, Canada and Mexico would both be non-stop international destinations (add connections and one can travel anywhere).

The more you claim this hogwash is consensual, the more your already minimal stature diminshes. Keep kidding yourself. I do not ever recollect giving explicit consent for the silliness that passes for a search at the typical airport check-point... Would seem that the recipients of a search would have to explicitly give consent in order for the search to be consensual. Implying that said consent is obtained merely by entering a check-point to undertake today's necessity of air travel is a legal flight of tormented illogic punctuated by your own little self-congratulatory fantasy.
Isn't there someone taking pictures at your airport within your imagined one minute check-point response zone? :rolleyes:

Sorry dude you are judged by the company you keep. There are thousands of cases involving crooked cops and crooked agencies. You know as well as I do that a good portion of seizure cases are weak at best and fraud at worst.

Neither melatonin nor vitamins are prescription drugs. As that is what the OP is noting that they are carrying I'd be very surprised if they found themselves arrested for such. But I guess the details of what actual pills are being carried are less important to you, huh?

I'm still trying to figure out why $10K in cash is suspicious, particularly to the TSOs. I understand compelling the TSOs to report things like drugs to a LEO, even if I don't think they should actually be searching bags looking for them specifically and I think that they are more than not. But carrying cash is something that people do from time to time. The retort you seem to come back with frequently is that it is obvious when someone shouldn't have lots of cash on them so you know they're criminals. But that doesn't explain how the TSOs could possibly know or be trained as such, nor why something that is not actually criminal in any way is considered suspect by anyone.

A. By whose authority must the $10+ be reported and to whom?

Like I said it wasn't a "what if" post. I simply stated I just don't see any "normal" individual carrying $10k+ or whatever not doing ANYTHING to stop ANYONE from taking their hard earned money. You don't hear about these situations, so I doubt the seizures happen even 1% as much as we seem to hear about.....Assuming I am incorrect on all counts; everyone is a criminal and or a coward. Their can't be another selection.....End of thread for me.

I have been giving this issue a lot of thought and research. I think what bugs me the most is not the fact that if you are carrying large sums of money a LEO may become involved but the fact that TSOs are being told that greater than $10k IS contraband and they "should" refer you to a LEO according to OD-400-54-2.

I think we all understand and agree that if a TSO (or anyone) sees something that constitutes a serious crime (felony) they must report it. If they don't they will be guilty of misprision of a felony, but does that extend to being compelled to report something that is legal but claimed to be contraband?

I have spent a good amount of time pondering this issue.

If a TSO referred a passenger to a LEO because the TSO felt the amount of money being carried was suspicious, I would be more forgiving. After all as good citizens we should report suspicious activity to the authorities.

If I see someone walking from a house carrying a TV and in my mind this is suspicious I should report it. If my life were run by the TSA I would compelled to report ANYONE carrying a TV even if I can see the delivery truck in the driveway.

$10k+ would be suspicious in some circumstances and not in others. If I am carrying $10k+ that would be suspicious, if Bill Gates were carrying $10k+ it would be pocket change.

In summary I really don't have a problem with a TSO having a REASONABLE suspicion about a large sum of money and involving a LEO, I have a huge problem with the TSA lying to the TSOs about $10k+ being contraband and forcing them to involve a LEO when there is NO reasonable suspicion.

This is a cute story. :rolleyes:

While the TSA is an easy target both here on FT and in general, there are two major distinctions between then and now:

1) When the government gets involved, everyone has elevated responsibilities. Acme Security Screening Inc and the TSA are in two very different legal positions. The TSA is accountable in so many more ways than a private company would be. But it does go both ways-- they get federal benefits! Also, killing them is a federal crime.

2) Under the TSA, the option to withdraw consent during the (administrative) search was eliminated. I understand the security rationale for such a rule, but I think the result needs to be "blinders" on the TSA when it comes to things that aren't per se illegal. Otherwise the temptation is just too great-- not for the individual TSO-- but for more and more dragnet-type of procedures to be added. This is only one security directive.

While each of those distinctions seems minor, those are both major distinctions in the legal arena. I have not ignored the issue. :)

I believe most (if not all) of such laws apply only to controlled substances, a small fraction of all prescriptions filled.

The rule doesn't ask them to report suspicious items-- it asks them to report over $10k in cash irrespective of any suspicious nature. Is over $10k in cash now per se suspicious?

As far as punishing the messenger, that would never happen around here.

Respectfully, Trollkiller, I disagree because most screeners do not have the capacity to make a determination of "reasonable suspicion."

If it is not illegal to carry >$10,000 in country, then the TSA has no business referring anyone to a LEO. I don't care if the money or instrument is in a wallet, tucked into a bra, hidden in the bottom of a shoe - it is none of the TSA's business.

A fraction of a percent that you seem to be exaggerating just to support your cause here. In every seizure case I have ever been involved in (going on 7 years), there has never been an ounce of doubt in my mind that the money was illegally obtained and being carried to go buy drugs. There are other factors at play aside from just the money itself, but I care not to divulge them here.

Last I checked, walking into the checkpoint IS consenting to adhere to screening procedures to board an aircraft. Call it what you want, but no one is twisting your arm to have you and your belongings searched. It seems that the US Justices agree on this as well. I guess they're just supporting "hogwash."


I disagree. While it is now a federal agency conducting the screening, those before the TSA were required to screen passengers according to federal law (per FAA). It was still federal rule that required passengers be screened and things to go reported should contraband be found during the screening process by contract employees. Although the Aukai ruling occurred under TSA's time, I think the outcome would have been the same would it have been contract security who discovered the drugs in Aukai's pocket(s). Whether TSA or contract doing the screening, it is TSA/DHS policies that the screeners must adhere to. The contract companies do not make up seperate (non-governmental) policies to enforce at federally-mandated checkpoints.

TSOs simply call the on-scene LEO to the money. From my training and experience dealing with interdiction, it only takes a couple of minutes (with other factors at play aside from the money) to figure out if this person is carrying his own money, or someone else's to buy the drugs. Like I mentioned before, there are far more people who carry cash who are questioned very little who come through the security checkpoint.

Still relishing on the past are we? Imagined one minute response? Feel free to cause a problem at the checkpoint at BNA and time the LE response. I would be glad to provide you lunch at one of our restaurants if you prove me wrong.

TK, I agree with you up to a point. If a person was found to have money taped to their body I would be curious as to why. More investigation would be on order. I think that is what you were getting at. However, if a person was found to have a large amount of money in their briefcase or such I don't think it is any business of TSA or Police as to why barring some other indicator of wrong doing.

TSA has enough on its plate without getting into a dragnet checkpoint. And by all indications aren't very good at what they should be doing! Why complicate the issue with make work problems.

The real problem I have is that $10K cash is contraband as determined by TSA OD-400-54-2 . I believe that the directive stating such is faulty.

A lot of us need to fly commercial to keep our jobs, see our families, etc. From that point of view, a TSA checkpoint is no more "consensual" that if the government put up a checkpoint outside my home's front door or on the commuter rail someone takes to work (and they're doing that too). Sure, you could say nobody is twisting my arm to leave my house, but it's not practical or realistic to avoid the checkpoint.

IANAL, but IMO the entire doctrine of "implied consent" is hogwash. There should be no implied consent. You either explicitly consent or you don't. And the checkpoints/dragnets the government seems to like putting up in our travel infrastructure (not just planes, but trains too, and who knows what's next) are not consensual searches, they are forced administrative (and effectively criminal too) searches (unfortunately) required to exercise our right to free movement.

If the government really wants "implied consent" administrative searches, they need to use the blinders listed in a previous post--anything outside the scope of their mandate that is not an immediate threat and not an obvious felony should be ignored. See a human head, report it. See a bunch of cash, white powder, glass pipes, or nude photos of someone who might be 19 or might be 17, ignore it.

Let's just release all of it and let the criminals travel abroad as fast as they can on aircraft without any fear of getting caught with their tools. Rapists, pornographers, drug smuggling murderers, what's the big deal? As long as you can get to your vacationing spot in Florida without being "harassed," it doesn't matter now does it? :rolleyes:

OK... I try to stay out of these debates. However, this attitude just steams me. Most FFs are not on vacation. They are trying to do their job; same as you. Their jobs just happen to require they pass through airport security checkpoints on a regular basis. (And keep in mind that exceptions are made for most people who need to regularly access the airport secure area... making it seem "the rules" only apply to those who are actually paying to fly. Just a side Q: How often do you have to pass through the checkpoint? Empty pockets; take off jacket; remove shoes; etc. Weekly? Daily? Once a year on vacation?)

I suspect if the US implemented automotive checkpoints similar to those at the US/Mexican border at the entrance to every US interstate highway, you would see similar complaints from truckers that we have here on FT regarding airport checkpoints. City dwellers and infrequent long-haul drivers probably wouldn't care as much. It's not a big deal - except to those most affected.

In the case of airport security checkpoints, FTers tend to be the most vocal complainers - because they are the most inconvenienced. While some of the arguments I read here are over the top - on both sides - I think we can at least try to understand the other point of view.

OK... now back on topic. Cash /= Contraband. Or does it?

I think if we're going to implement customs checks at the airport, they should be done by Customs... and only for those flyers getting on or off an international flight.

How many rapists and murderers, and even pornographers have been caught at checkpoints these days. I presume you mean child pornographers, who are likely to be caught be customs agents-as they should be-looking at electronic devices. They are not caught passing through a check point where I don't believe they turn the computers on and search photos-yet-but it seems you might advocate that as well, if we follow your money theory (. To bad OJ didn't try to fly after the Goldman murder it seems the TSA would have saved the day!

The inane fecklessness of TSA justification can only go so far. The sky was not falling before, it is not falling now. Unless you read TSA press releases...


Ciao,
FH

I hope you're not the one that has to make the determination. Neither melatonin (a dietary supplement) nor vitamins are prescription meds.

If I hear you correctly, the presumption would be made by an investigating officer that the pills are drugs or contraband until I proved otherwise. At the minimum, it would mean that I'm detained (and miss my flight(s) ) while y'all spend time figuring it out. At the worst, I'll face a false accusation and have to prove myself in court. In other words, I am faced with a "penalty" for flying with perfectly legal substances. That, my friend, is precisely what's wrong with the current process.

By the way, it's pretty a pretty common technique amongst certain law enforcement organizations to force someone to "pay" even if the law-enforcer can't prove anything illegal. It's done to "send a message". And yes, I have personal knowledge of that being done.....

Please share your "knowledge" and enlighten us all as to the actual numbers of Rapists pornographers drug smuggling murderers arrested charged and convicted as a result of TSA calling over a LEO at Nashville over say the last 3 years. Thank you in advance. Their names would be useful as well. They are matters of public record after all.

Cash over 10K is officially being defined as contraband?????

They should not be reporting anything which is unrelated to aviation security. Period.

A good citizen minds his own business and keeps his mouth shut unless they see a crime where someone will be hurt or there is property loss/damage.

Please. Carrying cash is not suspicious. I'll write it again. Carrying cash is not suspicious. It doesn't matter who you are.

I have a huge problem with it.

Posted by Blogdad Bob on the TSA Blog.

"Discovery of Contraband During the Screening Process OD-400-54-2 May 9, 2005

Expiration – Indefinite

Summary - This directive provides guidance to ensure nationwide consistency in the appropriate referral or initiation of civil enforcement actions for incidents involving discovery of contraband during TSA screening procedures.

Procedures - When TSA discovers contraband during the screening process that is not a TSA Prohibited Item, the matter should be referred to the local Law Enforcement Officers as appropriate. An Enforcement Investigative Report should not be initiated.

Examples of such contraband include:

- Illegal Drugs
- Drug Paraphernalia
- Large Amounts of Cash(10,000.00)

The OD was signed by TSAs Chief Operating Officer at the time, Jonathan J. Fleming"

Looks like PDX security is not up to BNA standards. ;)

To be a little more clear (since you may have missed my point) many here don't have a problem with some things being found and action taken, but they have problems with other things being deemed "suspicious" (i.e. money) where LE becomes involved. There is no feasible way a policy can be written that makes everything specific that TSA should or should not be looking for. Whether it is illegal or not, it will be the determination of the LEO on scene to make that call. As far as TSA not reporting anything (i.e. horse blinders) while screening for weapons/explosives, that will never happen. So boca and others who indicate such should forget about it.

Why am I not surprised this comes from you boca. If everyone were to be a little more savvy to their surroundings and reported suspicious activity, whether in an airport or out on the street, there would very likely be a lot less crime overall. Most criminal cases depend on witness testimony, even if the crime was not committed against those testifying. Let's ignore everything that occurs around us and hope for the best. People like that tend to be more victims than those who are aware.

I'm glad you're not making the rules.

It seems that you and others are under the assumption that I or my counterparts come and yank you up should you have a pill in something aside from a pill container. Let's try not to assume shall we? It is relatively quick and easy to identify any type of pills, whether using the text we have available to us or simply calling the pill ID center at Vanderbilt. All of which takes a minute or two. As I've already stated once, it's rare I get called to the checkpoint in reference to just pills in a bag or other not-so-common pill container.

Your opinion definitely varies from those who work drug interdiction. Who, where (or where to), how, and when someone is carrying money can definitely be suspicious. Thousands upon thousands of seizure cases on the local and federal level have proven such.

Whether on vacation or working, if there is such a problem with checkpoint screening, find something else that does not require you to fly so much. It seems that there is a very small percentage that have a big a problem as most on here would suggest.

As far as me personally, since I'm armed it kind of defeats the purpose to subject me to screening doesn't it? I fly maybe a half-dozen times a year. While I find some of the new policies (as I have indicated in the past) an inconvenience, I do not lose my head over it. There are far more things going on in my life then to waste time writing complaints about how screening SHOULD be done, or how I was stopped or "harassed" by TSA. This so-called harassment is very objective. Would a large majority of the flying public say that they were sometimes inconvenienced by the newer screening policies/procedures? Absolutely. Would the same bunch claim it was "harassment" or bad enough it would deter them from flying commercially again? Not likely. Now this could have swayed a little more true when the TSA was first put to work and no one knew what they could or couldn't do, and who to subject to certain types of screening, but I believe it has improved. At least they have attempted to give you "expert" travelers your own lane to keep you from getting held up.

Yes cash $10k or greater has been deemed contraband by a TSA directive.

A good citizen keeps his eye out for his fellow citizens. I will agree that a TSO has not right looking for anything that is NOT a weapon, explosive or incendiary but if they find something suspicious they should report it.

That's the spirit. ^