TSA & Currency Control
#106
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: BWI
Programs: AA Gold, HH Diamond, National Emerald Executive, TSA Disparager Gold
Posts: 15,180
In my eyes, simply allowing anyone to leave a security checkpoint after a search has been initiated (by putting bags on the x-ray belt and/or walking through the WTMD) gives every terrorist (or anyone else with the intent do to public harm) the opportunity to test the system and get away without a scratch if their test fails. If joe plumber knows that he can simply walk away from a search, then what good is a checkpoint? If his bag gets pulled for secondary screening because something is suspicious on the x-ray, and he says "no, I want to take my bag and leave the secure area," what the he** is the point of even having a checkpoint? Eventually if enough tests are conducted, someone is going to get through. Guess who is going to take the blow? TSA or whomever is doing the screening. So basically from your standpoint, they are dam*ed if they do, dam*ned if they don't.
TSA checkpoints leak like a sieve as it is. It's not like it's difficult to get bad stuff past them without probing already.
#107
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: BWI
Programs: AA Gold, HH Diamond, National Emerald Executive, TSA Disparager Gold
Posts: 15,180
As was summed up quaintly in United States v. Christian Hartwell, thusly, with the pertinent part put in bold:
I'm tried of judges using terrorism as an excuse to rule. There's this thing called law that they tend to ignore when they do that ...
If terrorists are as numerous as the government believes, they can just keep buying refundable tickets to probe the system that way. See what they can bring thru that looks like an item they might use, and what triggers a bag search. If one gets busted, so what? Just send another lackey thru. Will refundable tickets be seen as probes for mischief and terrorism then?
There's always going to be ways to probe the system. Does that mean we continue to give up rights, privileges, and so forth to close up the holes? Just where is the line supposed to be drawn? I think that's the big question. The line keeps moving, and not in a good direction.
#108
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Florida
Posts: 3,006
So instead of having a 1 way street that favors the citizen, we have a 1 way street that favors the goverment. I guess it depends on who's doing the railroading determines whether it's ok or not.
I'm tried of judges using terrorism as an excuse to rule. There's this thing called law that they tend to ignore when they do that ...
If terrorists are as numerous as the government believes, they can just keep buying refundable tickets to probe the system that way. See what they can bring thru that looks like an item they might use, and what triggers a bag search. If one gets busted, so what? Just send another lackey thru. Will refundable tickets be seen as probes for mischief and terrorism then?
There's always going to be ways to probe the system. Does that mean we continue to give up rights, privileges, and so forth to close up the holes? Just where is the line supposed to be drawn? I think that's the big question. The line keeps moving, and not in a good direction.
I'm tried of judges using terrorism as an excuse to rule. There's this thing called law that they tend to ignore when they do that ...
If terrorists are as numerous as the government believes, they can just keep buying refundable tickets to probe the system that way. See what they can bring thru that looks like an item they might use, and what triggers a bag search. If one gets busted, so what? Just send another lackey thru. Will refundable tickets be seen as probes for mischief and terrorism then?
There's always going to be ways to probe the system. Does that mean we continue to give up rights, privileges, and so forth to close up the holes? Just where is the line supposed to be drawn? I think that's the big question. The line keeps moving, and not in a good direction.
To prevent the line from moving we have to get off our collective butts and police the line.
#109
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: USA
Posts: 1,439
I asked:
SgtScott31 replied negatively to at least one question then responded:
You dodged the questions. Why do you think we should not put government checkpoints on our streets?
My reading of the situation is that people here think that if checkpoints are neccessary for security and we choose to allow them for such then we should not allow them to be used for other purposes. Do you think they should be used for other purposes, such as checking everyone who flies for indication of completely unrelated legal violations?
Let's leave illegal items out of this. We're discussing mostly the cases where something that could be completely legal is found -- cash, pipes, pets, etc. Do you or do you not think that an airport checkpoints should be used to check people for ill-gotten gains, pipes that contain residue of controlled substances, un-vaccinated pets, pornography depicting 17.5-year-olds, digital media players with data obtained via copyright violation, etc.?
I wrote:
You responded:
Because, best I can tell, you support the idea that our government should search everyone just to find the few criminals. Do you or do you not support dragnet operations such as those conducted by TSA?
I wrote:
You didn't answer my question. Is that what you want?
You wrote:
The answer, very simply, is that someone with weapons will not be allowed on the airplane.
First, keep in mind that they are reporting not only contraband, but suspected contraband and also something that is only contraband by their own definition: cash.
Second, what's wrong with it is that 1) every minute they spend dealing with, for instance, pipes that might be used to smoke crack (as TSA's blogger Bob described recently) is a minute that we're paying them not to enhance the security of our transportation systems, and 2) it means that the searches we allow them to perform because they of their threats of violence amount to dragnet operations, and those are completely un-American.
You tell them, "Please search for weapons. When you are conducting warrantless searches of us for weapons, please, when you see something in our belongings that catches your attention, unless that item is a weapon, know that it is none of your business. If you see a pipe, assume it is free of residue of illegal substances and intended for use with legal substances. If you see some porn, assume that it contains people of legal age. If you see a pet, assume that it is licensed and has had its rabies shots. If you see some cash, assume that it belongs to the person holding it. If you see an digital music player, assume that the person holding it had permission to copy the data it contains onto it. If you see some papers, assume that they are not secret plans for world domination. If you see someone with brown skin, assume that he has a right to be where he is. None of that is any of your business. Your bag checkers' job is to find dangerous things. When you're not doing that, leave us alone. If you see someone being mugged at the terminal, sure, offer assistance, and if you find a head in a bag, sure, have someone look into it, but when anything else catches your eye and turns out not to be a weapon, go back to doing your job."
In your opinion, SgtScott31, should we put government checkpoints on the streets? If you think not, then why not? Now assume that cost of erecting and operating the checkpoints is not prohibitive. Should we do it? If not, why not?
I wrote:
Your opinions are dangerous to the United States of America -- more so if you are truly an officer of the law.
Because, best I can tell, you support the idea that our government should search everyone just to find the few criminals. Do you or do you not support dragnet operations such as those conducted by TSA?
I wrote:
Therein lies the crux of the issue. In your hypothetical situation, the checkpoint is still good for keeping dangerous items off airplanes -- its stated purpose and the reason for which we allow these otherwise unconsitutional searches at airports -- but it's not so good for conducting an unconstitutional dragnet operation. The latter is what you want, isn't it?
You wrote:
Second, what's wrong with it is that 1) every minute they spend dealing with, for instance, pipes that might be used to smoke crack (as TSA's blogger Bob described recently) is a minute that we're paying them not to enhance the security of our transportation systems, and 2) it means that the searches we allow them to perform because they of their threats of violence amount to dragnet operations, and those are completely un-American.
You tell them, "Please search for weapons. When you are conducting warrantless searches of us for weapons, please, when you see something in our belongings that catches your attention, unless that item is a weapon, know that it is none of your business. If you see a pipe, assume it is free of residue of illegal substances and intended for use with legal substances. If you see some porn, assume that it contains people of legal age. If you see a pet, assume that it is licensed and has had its rabies shots. If you see some cash, assume that it belongs to the person holding it. If you see an digital music player, assume that the person holding it had permission to copy the data it contains onto it. If you see some papers, assume that they are not secret plans for world domination. If you see someone with brown skin, assume that he has a right to be where he is. None of that is any of your business. Your bag checkers' job is to find dangerous things. When you're not doing that, leave us alone. If you see someone being mugged at the terminal, sure, offer assistance, and if you find a head in a bag, sure, have someone look into it, but when anything else catches your eye and turns out not to be a weapon, go back to doing your job."
#110
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Florida
Posts: 3,006
It is not my intention at all to take advantage of anybody. Walking up and asking someone some questions does not interpret into a detention or cutodial situation. If someone feels that way, then it is ignorance on their part, not mine. The courts agree.
I am sure in your oath you are required to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States of America as well as your State Constitution. If you allow someone to unknowingly forfeit a right, you have broken your oath.
For the same reason everyone else does not want a checkpoint out on the street. Problem is, FlyerTalk folks feel that checkpoints are not necessary at airports unless the TSOs apply horse-blinders and only look for C4 and Uzis. I have never expected a checkpoint to do my job for me, but I DO expect anyone with a conscious to report illegal items to the authorities just as I would expect someone to report crimes witnessed on the streets. You all disagree. That's your right.
Why? because they are different from yours? My opinions are reinforced by the mere fact that contraband discovered at checkpoints and reported has been upheld in every court since the beginning of aviation screening.
You took my statement out of context. I asked what good is a security checkpoint if someone with weapons can simply discontinue the screening process if they know they are about to get caught? This is what occurred with Aukai. Although it was drugs, what if it was a pistol or explosives? Would I hear any griping from you then? You simply can't have it both ways. Citizens of this country should be able to report illegal activities to the police. As long as TSA's primary focus is on dangerous items, why is it so wrong that they also report other contraband to law enforcement? How do you impose a policy that forces them to turn a blind eye to anything but weapons? It just isn't going to happen. So all this bickering is not really worth it now is it?
.
#111
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: PHL
Posts: 877
#113
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Nashville, TN
Posts: 355
Maybe someone should put a lock on the door at the computer facility and hire a real security guard, instead of protecting it by hassling amateur photographers at the adjacent airport.
Keeping stuff that can harm a flight off of planes. Sounds like mission accomplished.
TSA checkpoints leak like a sieve as it is. It's not like it's difficult to get bad stuff past them without probing already
TSA checkpoints leak like a sieve as it is. It's not like it's difficult to get bad stuff past them without probing already
So it's ok to allow them to keep trying and trying until a weapon is finally on board? Sorry, not in agreement with this one.
You dodged the questions. Why do you think we should not put government checkpoints on our streets?
My reading of the situation is that people here think that if checkpoints are neccessary for security and we choose to allow them for such then we should not allow them to be used for other purposes. Do you think they should be used for other purposes, such as checking everyone who flies for indication of completely unrelated legal violations?
Let's leave illegal items out of this. We're discussing mostly the cases where something that could be completely legal is found -- cash, pipes, pets, etc. Do you or do you not think that an airport checkpoints should be used to check people for ill-gotten gains, pipes that contain residue of controlled substances, un-vaccinated pets, pornography depicting 17.5-year-olds, digital media players with data obtained via copyright violation, etc.?
As far as pipes go, you can't say "let's leave illegal items out of this." Specifically here in TN, drug paraphernalia has several definitions. Most states require drugs to accompany the paraphernalia or actual residue be present in order to deem it as "paraphernalia." TN has another stipulation about the instrument's common and accepted practice in the community. Now I have not always been a LEO. I have never smoked marijuana, but I was around it plenty in my high school and college days. I have yet to see anyone use marble, glass, and small wood pipes to smoke tobacco from. Hookah's are an exception, as many in the TN community use those to smoke flavored tobacco. I am not talking about the Sherlock Holmes pipes. I'm sure you know which one's I am referring to. I think the numbers would easily suggest that most reasonable people who have ever been around marijuana know which ones are used to smoke it in and which ones are not. In other words, a pipe in and of itself can be paraphernalia in my jurisdiction given its shape, size, and its accepted/common use in the community. Now that's not to say that we snatch up and arrest every person that comes through here with a pipe that we deem (based on our training, education, and experience) is drug paraphernalia. Actually my records (which are public record if you want to come by and get them ) indicate I let far more of them go and just take the pipe. And I am sure this is the same with most officers here. We tend to deal with more serious issues than someone coming through with a marijuana pipe, but I am not going to hound TSA for bringing it to my attention. As far as cash is concerned, that's where probably the biggest argument is going to be held (and hence why this thread has gone forever). I will simply say this. TSA sometimes calls LEOs to the checkpoint for large sums of cash. If it is a policy they have, then that's something you guys can write complaints about to your heart's content. As far as our interaction, from a simple (and very quick) conversation, we can usually get an idea of the legitimacy of the person carrying the money. If we feel it needs to go further, we make further notification to the appropriate folks. If the person refuses to talk anymore and I have not yet establised enough RS to detain, then I will allow them to catch their flight. Normally a tactic that is used by the drug mules is to get to the airport 30 min before flight time so they can use the "miss my flight" excuse if stopped & questioned. Even if they make the flight before interdiction can arrive and make a more thorough assessment, others are waiting on the other end of the trip.
Because, best I can tell, you support the idea that our government should search everyone just to find the few criminals. Do you or do you not support dragnet operations such as those conducted by TSA?
If you see someone being mugged at the terminal, sure, offer assistance, and if you find a head in a bag, sure, have someone look into it, but when anything else catches your eye and turns out not to be a weapon, go back to doing your job."
#114
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: LAX/TPE
Programs: United 1K, JAL Sapphire, SPG Lifetime Platinum, National Executive Elite, Hertz PC, Avis PC
Posts: 42,198
Depends on where...within the sterile area, you have given consent to be searched again, although once past the checkpoint I think you can refuse and be escorted from the sterile area, but you cannot start the checkpoint screening process and then stop it and leave - however, your ability to actually do so is dependent on the proximity of the police, since the TSA is powerless to physically restrain or stop you from leaving.
If the TSA asks to search you elsewhere, and elsewhere could be the terminal, parking garage, roadway or even outside their jurisdiction like a ballpark, public transit, etc., you can tell them to get lost.
If the TSA asks to search you elsewhere, and elsewhere could be the terminal, parking garage, roadway or even outside their jurisdiction like a ballpark, public transit, etc., you can tell them to get lost.
#115
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 3,657
I'm enjoying watching this debate, and learning a lot from both sides, but I did want to jump in and ask about one esoteric point ...
I'm not sure I agree. Because when you step up and start a conversation with me, you're wearing a uniform, a badge, and several weapons --- all of which create an unequal relationship between you and I. (After all, as an ordinary citizen, I'm not allowed to carry weapons in an airport, and I don't have the authority to place anyone in custody pending formal arrest.) So the power relationship is definitely unequal ... and what might seem like innocent questions or suggestions are much more intimidating.
I'm not sure I agree. Because when you step up and start a conversation with me, you're wearing a uniform, a badge, and several weapons --- all of which create an unequal relationship between you and I. (After all, as an ordinary citizen, I'm not allowed to carry weapons in an airport, and I don't have the authority to place anyone in custody pending formal arrest.) So the power relationship is definitely unequal ... and what might seem like innocent questions or suggestions are much more intimidating.
#116
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Nashville, TN
Posts: 355
I'm enjoying watching this debate, and learning a lot from both sides, but I did want to jump in and ask about one esoteric point ...
I'm not sure I agree. Because when you step up and start a conversation with me, you're wearing a uniform, a badge, and several weapons --- all of which create an unequal relationship between you and I. (After all, as an ordinary citizen, I'm not allowed to carry weapons in an airport, and I don't have the authority to place anyone in custody pending formal arrest.) So the power relationship is definitely unequal ... and what might seem like innocent questions or suggestions are much more intimidating.
I'm not sure I agree. Because when you step up and start a conversation with me, you're wearing a uniform, a badge, and several weapons --- all of which create an unequal relationship between you and I. (After all, as an ordinary citizen, I'm not allowed to carry weapons in an airport, and I don't have the authority to place anyone in custody pending formal arrest.) So the power relationship is definitely unequal ... and what might seem like innocent questions or suggestions are much more intimidating.
I know it can possibly be intimidating, but most officers goal is to simply find out if you are a recreational photographer or that something else is going on. A few quick questions and some casual conversation is normally all that it takes. Most of the time I rarely ask questions. It's the conversation, body language, and other cues that may suggest the person may have something criminal in mind. It's literally a matter of seconds, and most people who have nothing to hide are glad to talk about their hobby, and may ask questions about my job or heck somewhere else where better photographs may be taken. I am an aircraft enthusiast myself. It's my job to know the commercial airliners (from a Firefighter standpoint aside from tactical), but I have always loved Fighter planes. My father was in the Air Force and worked on F-4 Phantoms. You never know what you may learn simply getting along with an officer and not immediately taking the person in the uniform as an a-hole wanting to harass you about your photography. Believe me I have other things I would rather be doing, but whether we are called on a "suspicious" person or spot you taking pictures, it is likely we will make contact. Now this is not to say there are some situations that went south simply because of the officer's lack of knowledge and/or attitude, but don't make that a general assumption about all officers who work with mass transit (Airport LEOs, Port Authority PD, etc)
#117
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Upstate NY or FL or inbetween
Programs: US former CP Looking for a new airline to love me
Posts: 1,674
Hmmm! Going, a little off-topic, but bear with me.
I seem to recall that Martha Stewart was willing to talk to an investigator without counsel present, after all, what harm could it do?
Worked out well for someone, and it certainly was not Martha.
Given all that goes on today in the prisons with jetways that used to be airports, I've got a 5th amendment right that isn't under attack at the same level as the 4th. I intend to use it.
I seem to recall that Martha Stewart was willing to talk to an investigator without counsel present, after all, what harm could it do?
Worked out well for someone, and it certainly was not Martha.
Given all that goes on today in the prisons with jetways that used to be airports, I've got a 5th amendment right that isn't under attack at the same level as the 4th. I intend to use it.
#118
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Nashville, TN
Posts: 355
Sorry the courts do not agree. It all depends on the scope of the questions, if you have suspicion and if the person you are speaking with has the understanding that they are free to walk away. See Miranda v Arizona. Here is a pretty good synopsis.
I am sure in your oath you are required to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States of America as well as your State Constitution. If you allow someone to unknowingly forfeit a right, you have broken your oath.
I am sure in your oath you are required to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States of America as well as your State Constitution. If you allow someone to unknowingly forfeit a right, you have broken your oath.
#2 - You made me laugh out loud when you referenced the Miranda case. I am very aware of Miranda and what I can and cannot do. What many people seem to think is that Miranda applies any time an officer asks you a question. Two things have to exist: (1) a custodial situation and (2) the questions being asked are going to illicit an incriminating response.
Reference my 1st scenario - walking up to a photographer whether in the Terminal or somewhere else on airport property, does a custodial situation apply? Unless I handcuff him, tell him he is not free to leave, sit him in the police car, or surround him with other officers, my answer is "no." Now I know this could turn into 100 "what-if" situations, but the main two factors the courts look at are the two I mentioned. Here is an interesting case that was just released yesterday in Nashville, TN were a murderer has been released because of failure to Mirandize:
http://www.wsmv.com/news/18404206/detail.html
Did the suspect feel he was in custody? sitting in a closed police interview room and being asked incriminating questions by two armed detectives, I would think so. So did the TN Supreme Court.
If I walked up to you on the street and asked if you killed your neighbor, technically your confession would be admissible because you are not in custody at this point. Even when I arrest people, I rarely Mirandize them because I don't ask any incriminating questions. A lot of the drunks like to make "utterances," but as courts have held, those are admissible.
Bickering is always worth it. Even if your mind won't change and my mind won't change there are those that have not been exposed to the opposing viewpoints. Without hearing opposing viewpoints one can not make an informed opinion.
#119
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Bahamas
Programs: AA Plat
Posts: 958
Setting aside the fact that TSA are checking everyone who crosses their checkpoints, not just those people bound for destinations outside the U.S., how would TSA's luggage inspectors even find that someone had more than $10,000? Notice two $10,000 bills in a bag? See some cash and dig through it looking for dangerous items, counting the cash as they dig?
They say that they're not looking for things like illegal drugs and large amounts of currency, but it's clear that they are taking the opportunity to search for whatever they want. Our government is searching all the honest people just to find the few criminals. It's disgusting.
They say that they're not looking for things like illegal drugs and large amounts of currency, but it's clear that they are taking the opportunity to search for whatever they want. Our government is searching all the honest people just to find the few criminals. It's disgusting.
Does TSA have access to CBP computer files?
#120
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: An NPR mind living in a Fox News world
Posts: 14,165
It's literally a matter of seconds, and most people who have nothing to hide are glad to talk about their hobby, and may ask questions about my job or heck somewhere else where better photographs may be taken.