Do you seriously have to ask that question?

No, actually it's worse. Normal human feelings I can at least understand. These special police feelings you derive from your KT&E are scary.

But you miss my point entirely. Your actions should be dictated by facts, not feelings. As previous posters have tried to point out to you, possession of US currency, in any amount, is neither illegal nor inherently suspicious.

That is a fact.

People in America are innocent in the eyes of the law until proven guilty.

That is another fact.

Your "feelings" (even if they're enhanced by your KT&E) do not alter either fact, and they do not create a requirement for a traveler to justify himself to you or to prove the "legitimacy" of his property.
I have no idea what point you're trying to make here. :confused:
Whatever dude. We all make mistakes. I trust you are more careful writing your official reports where peoples lives and liberty are at stake.
I'm not here to insult anybody. I'm sorry that you have such thin skin that my pointing out your vocabulary error is perceived as a personal affront.
Anything substantial I have to say to you on the subject of asset forfeiture abuse was said in our previous conversation. Based on your zealous defense here of not just AF, but many aspects of the encroaching police state, I have made a judgement that it would be a waste of my time to attempt to persuade you to change your ways.

But don't worry, I'll pop by to point out your errors, mistakes, and wrong-headedness from time to time. :p

After I repeatedly asked SgtScott31 why he thinks we should not put government checkpoints on our streets similar to those that TSA staffs in our airports, even if doing so was not cost prohibitive, he spent a long time replying to other parts of the discussion, but still refused to state why he thinks so, instead writing:

There's really no reason for you to think that I know the answer, but even if I did (and I do not) please re-state your reasoning for me. Please summarize if you feel you do not have the time to clearly explain your reasoning. I'd like to give you the benefit of the doubt, but I suspect that you cannot explain why you think we shouldn't create such checkpoints because you really don't think so. I suspect that you think this would be a great idea, because we could catch more bad guys if we did so. If you really think we should give up on the possibility of catching all those drug smugglers, crack pipe owners, child pornographers, copyright violators, undocumented immigrants, and parking ticket scofflaws, please explain why.

I think maybe we're using different definitions of the word dragnet. What did you mean by dragnet in the above quote?

No, I'm saying that my government should not be able to search people and their belongings without good reason to believe that they have done something wrong. I'm also saying that while it may be reasonable to search people and their belongings for dangerous items before they board a commercial flight, taking that opportunity to search them for anything that might suggest to a TSA bag checker that the person may have done something wrong, then elevating the scrutiny if something of the sort is found, is very wrong and very un-American.

Straw man. I'm not talking about law enforcement, I'm talking about TSA's bag checkers. Law enforcement's rights and responsibilities should not change based on TSA procedures. Please don't change the subject.

Because what TSA does at an airport checkpoint shouldn't affect the risk to criminals of those officers on the street, and because those officers can police airports just like they police the streets if they would like to. Again, I am not suggesting any change to law enforcement officers' procedures.

Only in theory. In practice, it's a search for anything that a TSA employee feels warrants stopping someone from going about his business.

I asked:

You didn't answer, instead writing:

Whether you recall it happening, and for that matter, whether it has happened, is irrelevant to this discussion. Do you think the airport checkpoints should be used to check for suggestion of all that wrong-doing or not? Do you think that things that might indicate some crimes should lead to police involvement and things that might indicate other crimes should be ignored? Do you really think the TSA should look the other way when they see items that might indicate that someone is carrying pictures of naked 17.5-year-olds or that might indicate that someone is flying a pet that has not been vaccinated as required by law?

Where are pipes that do not contain illegal substances illegal items? How is such a pipe defined? It's just a tube, right? How in the world can a TSA bag checker see something in someone's belongings and know that it has been used for illegal purposes?

Are you saying that if someone from TSA finds a pipe that you have never seen anyone smoke tobacco out of, he will assume that the person is sufficiently likely of having committed a crime that TSA should detain that while they await law enforcement?

Blogger Bob at TSA says that a directive was issued which states that large sums of cash are to be considered contraband, so it seems likely that TSA would be calling law enforcement officers whenever they find it.

You're building a straw-man argument again. There are few things that can be judged to be illegal by simply seeing them while searching a bag for explosives, weapons, and incendiaries. At the time that the things in question here are found by TSA, they are not known to be illegal, and it's reasonable to assume that they are not, absent circumstances that suggest the holder has done something wrong.

Everyone may have something criminal in mind, so cues to that effect are useless. I'll assume you meant to write about things that suggest that someone does have something criminal in mind. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

So what? Does the fact that someone is different (or simply has the sense not to talk to you unless he is required to, since you're always looking to build a case against him) give you sufficient reason to investigate him?

I must have misunderstood what you meant by "incriminating questions" if "did you kill your neighbor" is not one of them. Do you consider that to be such a question? If not, please clarify. If they are incriminating, please explain why answers to that question would be admissible in court if you did not Mirandize the subject of your questioning.

Phil here is the Federal law, state and local laws may be tighter or looser on the definition.

The short answer to your second question is this. If a TSO finds a pipe that appears to meet the definition above for drug paraphernalia, the TSO would have a reasonable suspicion that a serious crime (felony) is being commited and has the same right and duty as a citizen to report it to a LEO. The TSO also has the same right and duty as a citizen to detain the "suspect". Of course the TSO also has the same liability as a citizen if the suspicion was not reasonable.

I wish I could support you on this particular bit but I think on the paraphernalia you are barking up the wrong tree.

Over a thousand such deletions. Manual intervention with a motivation.

Yep. In a matter of a few minutes, someone skilled in elicitation techniques could easily determine target vulnerability, even a skilled and trained police officer and certainly anybody in the TSA, using innocent conversations.

I'm not saying I could go this far with you -- I haven't done this in many years -- and most pitches don't go anywhere. I could assess during our one conversation whether or not to go further with you. But, I guarantee that anyone whose task was to find a vulnerable and exploitable police officer at your airport could have someone in the palm of their hand very easily and rather quickly. Some of the easiest people to pitch are those who are in positions of authority and who buy into their own self-importance because they are often the ones who are hiding something.

I wrote the answer. Maybe you missed it. Check the previous post again.

So you want checkpoints to be thrown out as an administrative search, but rather those put through checkpoints where TSA has good reason to believe they have done something wrong or have intentions of doing something wrong. Who and by what means makes the decision to select people for screening and those who get to walk by? If you can figure that out, then I will gladly nominate you for Hawley's job.

Change the subject? Since when has TSA not been an arm of the government just like police?

Oh, so we have moved from griping about things TSA is currently doing to griping about things TSA has never done? I gotcha. So you're basically asking where should the line be drawn as to what TSA should or should not report during screening. That's not up to me, but personally, I don't have an issue with them reporting things where people are attempting to use air travel to conduct or promote illegal activity. The drug mules carrying money is a good example. Carrying money for drug dealers to go buy drugs at the border and bring them back stateside is something that should be stopped. This argument will go in circles between you and I, so we will have to agree to disagree as far as the currency issue is concerned.

Let me rephrase. Questions that will illicit an incriminating response. As far as the scenario I described, two prongs have to be met in order for Miranda to be necessary. One is where the suspect feels they are in custody and two is if the question being asked by an agent of the state (Police) would illicit an incriminating response. Simply asking someone a question, even if it may illicit an incriminating response does not require Miranda if they are not in custody (or a reasonable person would feel they are free to leave).

Case in point would be conducting the field sobriety tests on a DUI investigation/stop. These tests are done during the traffic stop and the courts have upheld that the person is not in custody (although detained), so Miranda does not apply, even though the results of the field sobriety tests could be incriminating against the driver. Little better?

The same items that are apparent in the eyes of those not even trained are the ones being reported. Since I have been an Airport LEO, the same items have always been reported. The TSA has not expanded their reports to Ipods, animals, or anything else aside from what has already occurred (pipes, prohibited weapons, ammo, and large sums of cash).

Says you and others here with no LE experience what so ever.




Says you and other people who earn and travel with legitimate funds. The drug mules know the game, so they don't have the same opinion you do, since what they are doing is highly illegal on a federal level and they know it.

My reports are public record, so if you have the time and money to review them, I will provide the red ink pen. Since most of them are law enforcement and EMS-related, they should be squared away. ;)


As I have no doubt you are set in your ways as well, so let's try to argue out our points and leave it at that. We have both made some unnecessary comments towards each other over the short time I've been here, and I will try to bite my lip (or finger) in the future if you agree to do the same when it is not relevant to the topic at hand. ^

-------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
But you miss my point entirely. Your actions should be dictated by facts, not feelings. As previous posters have tried to point out to you, possession of US currency, in any amount, is neither illegal nor inherently suspicious.

Says you and others here with no LE experience what so ever
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Sgt Scott, can you reference a law that makes the sole possession of US currency a violation of law?

Asking someone "did you kill your wife?" would, by the nature of the question, illicit an incriminating response and therefore would be an improper question without Miranda. Any lawyer worth his salt would get that utterance suppressed.

Spontaneous utterances are allowed without a Miranda. If you ask the question "what happened?" and the person you are talking to states they killed their wife, that would be admissible.

A reasonable person would never feel they are free to go when faced by an officer. Walk away when a cop is talking to you in Florida will get you arrested and charged with "resisting arrest without violence". Yes that can be the only charge against you.

People need to learn to ask "am I free to leave?" whenever a police officer is talking to them. Keep asking the question until the officer says "yes"or "no". If the officer says "no", shut up. You have nothing more to say. If the officer says "yes", shut up and walk away.

If an officer asks if he can search, tell them no. If that officer feels he has probable cause to search he will do so without your permission. If that officer knows he does not have probable cause and that officer is smart he will not search because any evidence found in that search will be inadmissible.
Apples and oranges and YOU know it. All states, I believe, now require that you agree to submit to sobriety tests as a condition for holding a driver's license. At the bottom of my Florida driver's license it states "Operation of a motor vehicle constitutes consent to any sobriety test required by law."

Asking a driver at a DUI checkpoint if they have been drinking is not a violation of Miranda because drinking is not illegal, driving drunk is. If you notice the officer does not ask "are you drunk?" as that would be a question that could illicit an incriminating response.

For good or ill, you believe incorrectly. At the very least, the State of Illinois does not have any such requirement as condition for licensure.

Dave

In the context of this thread, what we (I) am asking is why is an excess of $10,000 in cash contraband?

Is it legal for me to take $16,000 in cash out of the bank and fly to New York and back for no reason? Of course it is legal-- so, why is over $10,000 contraband? It may be suspicious-- but is it contraband?

That is the topic of this thread-- and I haven't seen an answer to that question other than "the TSA considers it to be contraband therefore it is," or "it is usually drug money."

Be careful with those sweeping generalizations. You never know who here has LE experience and who doesn't.