TSA & Currency Control
Jan 3, 2009, 2:11 pm
#46
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 11,512
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.
Jan 3, 2009, 2:46 pm
#47
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Florida
Posts: 3,006
Jan 3, 2009, 3:56 pm
#48
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 11,512
Jan 3, 2009, 4:37 pm
#50
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
Seizures of large sums of money at security checkpoints have been occurring long before TSA's inception. With that said, I have yet to see one seizure where I work where I felt the person was a fraction honest and/or legitimate about where and how they received the funds. It's funny to see a person who claimed $18k to the IRS the year before, and now has $42k in cash to start a dry-cleaning business with a "partner," but yet does not know the partner's name, address, or phone number and has no job. Do you think any of them get mad when the currency is seized? They expect it. They cannot show one shred of evidence of legally obtaining the money. I see large sums of money many times with Egyptian families and others in the middle east. They may get questioned, but I have yet to see their money confiscated because they legitimately earned it and have appropriate documentation to prove such. Besides, TSA has little to do with it. They see large bulks of money and call law enforcement. We investigate a little further, and if some things don't add up and/or we detect deception, then it goes further.
I know this subject has come up once before and there was many posts made regarding the legitimacy of these searches at checkpoints. Before we get into that again, regardless of whether you feel the search is legal (even though it has been proven as an administrative search where one consents by entering the checkpoint), it's really a mute point.
If you're dumb enough to try to take drug-buying money through a security checkpoint at a US airport, you deserve to get caught.
I know this subject has come up once before and there was many posts made regarding the legitimacy of these searches at checkpoints. Before we get into that again, regardless of whether you feel the search is legal (even though it has been proven as an administrative search where one consents by entering the checkpoint), it's really a mute point.
If you're dumb enough to try to take drug-buying money through a security checkpoint at a US airport, you deserve to get caught.
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.
If a couple of pills are rolled up in a baggie and/or artfully concealed, then yes, we are normally called. People who have legal or prescribed pills do not hide them when coming through security. It is a call by call scenario, and it is pretty obvious who carries the Sun - Sat pills and who legitimately has any type of drugs. We are rarely called on these unless it is a blatant illegal drug (i.e. marijuana, white powder).
Jan 3, 2009, 4:57 pm
#51
Moderator: Midwest, Las Vegas & Dining Buzz
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Illinois
Posts: 17,970
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.
Jan 3, 2009, 4:58 pm
#52
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 11,512
Jan 3, 2009, 5:16 pm
#54
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: The Sunshine State
Programs: Deltaworst Peon Level, TSA "Layer 21 Club", NW WP RIP
Posts: 11,370
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.
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.
Jan 3, 2009, 6:49 pm
#56
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Nashville, TN
Posts: 355
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.
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.
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.
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?
You hit the nail on the head. His job is airport security-- his job is not to help you do your job.
You sure tote water well!
Jan 3, 2009, 6:59 pm
#57
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 109
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.
Jan 3, 2009, 7:19 pm
#58
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Rural TN (but WAS native)
Programs: National Executive Elite, none of the others matter
Posts: 23,823
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).
Jan 3, 2009, 7:23 pm
#59
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
Isn't there someone taking pictures at your airport within your imagined one minute check-point response zone?
Jan 3, 2009, 7:45 pm
#60
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Florida
Posts: 3,006
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.
