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. ^

I'll see if I can look deeper into this definition issue. I think it's in everyone's best interests to get it squashed.

As for point two, I think I covered this - yes, a good citizen looks out for his fellow citizens, but that does not include tattling on people when you notice they have cash, drugs, or feigning panic because someone looks different. It does suggest getting involved when someone's health, safety or property is at risk - none of which is covered by excess cash, drugs, porn or religious texts which are not Christian in nature.

Neither, by simple inspection, is LAX, nor ART, nor SYR nor MCO or TPA. I doubt PHL or DCA, or LGA to just think of a few, meet this envisioned standard, either. In Sgt. Scott's own words, however, it's a federal mandate that a one minute response time is required for LEO's to airport check-points. (I guess if he's arresting at one pier for taking photos or just for genuine attitude he get's a bye, though)

Well, you are correct, currently, under the highest court ruling such a challenge has ever reached, IIRC. Good luck keeping the courts aligned with you, going forward, as you keep reciting the mantra that all who enter the sanctity of an airport check-point "implicitly consented" to your "probable cause" conclusions simply because eg, one is carrying > $10,000 in cash, took photographs of your sanctified little area, or otherwise disrupted the happy-faced, facile dragnet you seem to have constructed at BNA. And now you feel qualified to conclude what a court ruling would have been in a different time with different evidence? When earlier in the post, referring to a circuit court decision, you use such loose, impenetrable terms as "US justices?",
You are one simple, but very dangerous person, and nothing you wrote since you first appeared here makes me want to do anything save give BNA as wide of a berth as feasible. We're probably both a lot happier that way.

The Circuits will likely split on this issue as more cases are challenged in other areas of the country. The 4th amd. is making a small comeback around the country.

You just made an argument for putting checkpoints at every street corner, allowing random police searches of homes, throwing out the 4th Amendment completely, etc. The founders knew better than to allow that, because the perceived gain in security/safety wasn't worth the loss of liberty. It's disturbing that many if not most of our law-enforcement community doesn't understand that.

Rewording what you just said (replace aircraft with "foot"):

Are you happy to have the government set up a checkpoint at your front door? I'm not.

And the patriots danced in the streets.

Probable cause has nothing to do with airport-security checkpoints. As deemed by the courts, it is an administrative search. You try so hard to make things sound so bad and twist words of others to fit your responses. I have stated time and time again that the $10k mark has nothing to do with the small amount of seizures that occur at airports. A large sum of money (normally much more than $10k) plus several other factors will lead to law enforcement intervention and possibly seizure of the currency. Unless you have law enforcement experience, and specifically interdiction experience, I would not expect you or others here to understand.

As far as "qualifications," I simply stated an opinion. Why don't you give your argument as to why you think the 9th Circuit US Court of Appeals would have ruled differently in the Aukai case had it been private security instead of TSA who discovered the felony amount of drugs? As far as "loose impenetrable" terms go, I apologize for being too lazy to type out US 9th Circuit Court of Appeals Justices. Give me a break. Facile dragnet? How is BNA any different from any other checkpoint where possible contraband/drugs are reported by TSA that are discovered during the screening process. Are you seriously implying that this is something new to the checkpoint community? It seems that many here forget this has been done since screening began. Get over it man.

And for God's sake, why don't you and boca come off the photograph issue. I'm pretty sure I could dig up the aged-old post where I simply advised that BNA has a policy against commercial photography/video without consent from the Airport Authority. I could care less about passengers taking pictures. I love how you and others try to dig up as much as possible, twist it to make me sound like an a**hole and repost it again and again. No wonder law enforcement and others looking in from another angle are few and far between on this forum. Heaven forbid there is a difference of opinion aside from the majority on FT.

Not sure where you get that from, but I assure you, I am fine with the checkpoints being where they are. As I stated a page or so ago, I do not see anything that would indicate such checkpoints are going to pour out onto the streets.

I don't know that it would have been different with Whackenhut, Argenbright, etc.

What I do think would be different is the reason WHY they found the search to be reasonable. They cited terrorism and probing as why the search was reasonable, which I think is pretty dubious ground. Had the search been found unreasonable, the evidence would have been tossed. I think in a pre-9/11 enviornment, a judge would have taken a different view of what was reasonable.

Also keep in mind this is just one ruling with regards to it. I'm not sure if it's binding precedent or not. I'd like to see it go up to the Supremes. I don't know that it's valid outside the 9th.

If evidence can be tossed even when a warrant is present because an LEO exceeded the scope, I think a challenge is in the making for challenging an administrative search's scope.

Super

While the Founding Fathers have been rolling in their graves.

Not that it matters that much in the context, but I believe they are Judges, not Justices.

As far as Aukai is concerned, that set of facts is pretty narrow.