TSA & Currency Control
Jan 6, 2009, 8:03 pm
#121
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Nashville, TN
Posts: 355
Do you seriously have to ask that question?
Jan 6, 2009, 10:46 pm
#122
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Programs: AA,AS,UA,Hyatt,Hilton
Posts: 1,246
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'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.
But don't worry, I'll pop by to point out your errors, mistakes, and wrong-headedness from time to time.
Last edited by Top Tier; Jan 6, 2009 at 11:06 pm Reason: added quotation marks
Jan 6, 2009, 10:56 pm
#123
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: USA
Posts: 1,439
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.
If people know that law enforcement cannot take action against them if they carry illegal drugs or other contraband through a security checkpoint as long as it is not a threat to an aircraft, then you have just given the green light to everyone to use air travel to facilitate their criminal activity.
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:
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 think you're exaggerating a bit. Cash & pipes I will answer to, but as far as vaccinated pets and digital media, you must know something I don't. I can't recall any LEOs at my agency ever being called to the checkpoint for confirmation of vaccinated animals or computer-related crimes (copyright infringement).
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.
Last edited by pmocek; Jan 6, 2009 at 11:06 pm Reason: s/beginning/building/
Jan 6, 2009, 11:01 pm
#124
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: USA
Posts: 1,439
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?
Jan 6, 2009, 11:05 pm
#125
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: USA
Posts: 1,439
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.
Jan 7, 2009, 3:34 am
#126
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Florida
Posts: 3,006
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?
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?
21 USC Sec. 863
(a) In general
It is unlawful for any person -
(1) to sell or offer for sale drug paraphernalia;
(2) to use the mails or any other facility of interstate commerce to transport drug paraphernalia; or
(3) to import or export drug paraphernalia.
(d) ''Drug paraphernalia'' defined
The term ''drug paraphernalia'' means any equipment, product, or material of any kind which is primarily intended or designed for use in manufacturing, compounding, converting, concealing, producing, processing, preparing, injecting, ingesting, inhaling, or otherwise introducing into the human body a controlled substance, possession of which is unlawful under this subchapter. It includes items primarily intended or designed for use in ingesting, inhaling, or otherwise introducing marijuana, (FOOTNOTE 1) cocaine, hashish, hashish oil, PCP, methamphetamine, or amphetamines into the human body, such as -
(FOOTNOTE 1) So in original. Probably should be ''marihuana,''.
(1) metal, wooden, acrylic, glass, stone, plastic, or ceramic pipes with or without screens, permanent screens, hashish heads, or punctured metal bowls;
(2) water pipes;
(3) carburetion tubes and devices;
(4) smoking and carburetion masks;
(5) roach clips: meaning objects used to hold burning material, such as a marihuana cigarette, that has become too small or too short to be held in the hand;
(6) miniature spoons with level capacities of one-tenth cubic centimeter or less;
(7) chamber pipes;
(8) carburetor pipes;
(9) electric pipes;
(10) air-driven pipes;
(11) chillums;
(12) bongs;
(13) ice pipes or chillers;
(14) wired cigarette papers; or
(15) cocaine freebase kits.
(e) Matters considered in determination of what constitutes drug paraphernalia
In determining whether an item constitutes drug paraphernalia, in addition to all other logically relevant factors, the following may be considered:
(1) instructions, oral or written, provided with the item concerning its use;
(2) descriptive materials accompanying the item which explain or depict its use;
(3) national and local advertising concerning its use;
(4) the manner in which the item is displayed for sale;
(5) whether the owner, or anyone in control of the item, is a legitimate supplier of like or related items to the community, such as a licensed distributor or dealer of tobacco products;
(6) direct or circumstantial evidence of the ratio of sales of the item(s) to the total sales of the business enterprise;
(7) the existence and scope of legitimate uses of the item in the community; and
(8) expert testimony concerning its use.
(f) Exemptions
This section shall not apply to -
(1) any person authorized by local, State, or Federal law to manufacture, possess, or distribute such items; or
(2) any item that, in the normal lawful course of business, is imported, exported, transported, or sold through the mail or by any other means, and traditionally intended for use with tobacco products, including any pipe, paper, or accessory.
(a) In general
It is unlawful for any person -
(1) to sell or offer for sale drug paraphernalia;
(2) to use the mails or any other facility of interstate commerce to transport drug paraphernalia; or
(3) to import or export drug paraphernalia.
(d) ''Drug paraphernalia'' defined
The term ''drug paraphernalia'' means any equipment, product, or material of any kind which is primarily intended or designed for use in manufacturing, compounding, converting, concealing, producing, processing, preparing, injecting, ingesting, inhaling, or otherwise introducing into the human body a controlled substance, possession of which is unlawful under this subchapter. It includes items primarily intended or designed for use in ingesting, inhaling, or otherwise introducing marijuana, (FOOTNOTE 1) cocaine, hashish, hashish oil, PCP, methamphetamine, or amphetamines into the human body, such as -
(FOOTNOTE 1) So in original. Probably should be ''marihuana,''.
(1) metal, wooden, acrylic, glass, stone, plastic, or ceramic pipes with or without screens, permanent screens, hashish heads, or punctured metal bowls;
(2) water pipes;
(3) carburetion tubes and devices;
(4) smoking and carburetion masks;
(5) roach clips: meaning objects used to hold burning material, such as a marihuana cigarette, that has become too small or too short to be held in the hand;
(6) miniature spoons with level capacities of one-tenth cubic centimeter or less;
(7) chamber pipes;
(8) carburetor pipes;
(9) electric pipes;
(10) air-driven pipes;
(11) chillums;
(12) bongs;
(13) ice pipes or chillers;
(14) wired cigarette papers; or
(15) cocaine freebase kits.
(e) Matters considered in determination of what constitutes drug paraphernalia
In determining whether an item constitutes drug paraphernalia, in addition to all other logically relevant factors, the following may be considered:
(1) instructions, oral or written, provided with the item concerning its use;
(2) descriptive materials accompanying the item which explain or depict its use;
(3) national and local advertising concerning its use;
(4) the manner in which the item is displayed for sale;
(5) whether the owner, or anyone in control of the item, is a legitimate supplier of like or related items to the community, such as a licensed distributor or dealer of tobacco products;
(6) direct or circumstantial evidence of the ratio of sales of the item(s) to the total sales of the business enterprise;
(7) the existence and scope of legitimate uses of the item in the community; and
(8) expert testimony concerning its use.
(f) Exemptions
This section shall not apply to -
(1) any person authorized by local, State, or Federal law to manufacture, possess, or distribute such items; or
(2) any item that, in the normal lawful course of business, is imported, exported, transported, or sold through the mail or by any other means, and traditionally intended for use with tobacco products, including any pipe, paper, or accessory.
I wish I could support you on this particular bit but I think on the paraphernalia you are barking up the wrong tree.
Jan 7, 2009, 4:53 am
#127
Suspended
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 102,095
According to Bart a few years ago, they counted the cash to reassure us that they're not stealing it. Interestingly, that post has since been deleted.
Here's another thread on the subject of Flying with Cash INTRA USA.
Here's another thread on the subject of Flying with Cash INTRA USA.
Jan 7, 2009, 4:58 am
#128
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: An NPR mind living in a Fox News world
Posts: 14,165
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'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.
Jan 7, 2009, 11:05 am
#129
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Nashville, TN
Posts: 355
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.
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.
Whether you recall it happening, and for that matter, whether it has happened, is irrelevant to this discussion.
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.
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?
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.
Last edited by SgtScott31; Jan 7, 2009 at 11:16 am
Jan 7, 2009, 11:14 am
#130
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Nashville, TN
Posts: 355
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.
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.
Whatever dude. We all make mistakes. I trust you are more careful writing your official reports where peoples lives and liberty are at stake.
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.
Jan 7, 2009, 11:41 am
#131
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Original Poster
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: DFW
Posts: 28,100
-------------------------------------------------------------------
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?
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?
Jan 7, 2009, 11:52 am
#132
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Florida
Posts: 3,006
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).
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.
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?
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.
Jan 7, 2009, 11:56 am
#133
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: SPI
Programs: AA Gold, UA LT Plat, Mar LTT
Posts: 18,147
Dave
Jan 7, 2009, 11:59 am
#134
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 11,513
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."
Jan 7, 2009, 12:18 pm
#135
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: DCA / WAS
Programs: DL 2+ million/PM, YX, Marriott Plt, *wood gold, HHonors, CO Plt, UA, AA EXP, WN, AGR
Posts: 9,388