|
TSA & Currency Control
Well, Blogdad Bob has finally posted some supposed justification for referring people to Law Enforcement just because the person happens to have a large amount of currency. I suspect the heat was getting rather high around the TSA Freedom Abatement Center.
What is even more surprising is who signed the TSA document "Operation Directive: Discovery of Contraband During the Screening Process OD-400-54-2 May 9, 2005", TSA's Chief Operating Officer at the time, Jonathan J. Fleming. http://www.zoominfo.com/people/Flemi...258324137.aspx Founder and CEO of Global S2 which just happens to provide screening and security solutions for passengers and shipment of goods. I wonder just how many non-competitive DHS/TSA contracts that Global S2 has been awarded since the formation of the company? I would be interested! Perhaps we have found where some of the TSA's soon to depart people are headed. |
Why are TSA counting cash they find, anyway?
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. |
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. |
The entire subject of >$10,000 is driving me nuts. Not one of the alleged TSA posters can seem to understand that it is NOT illegal to transport money domestically. Neither is it illegal to take it into or out of the country if the proper papers have been filed. Yet almost to a person the alleged TSA people posting on the blog seem to deem it reasonable to report individuals carrying large sums of money.
In fact, this Fleming person has declared >$10,000 cash to be contraband along with illegal drugs and drug paraphernalia. |
Originally Posted by doober
(Post 10990373)
The entire subject of >$10,000 is driving me nuts. Not one of the alleged TSA posters can seem to understand that it is NOT illegal to transport money domestically. Neither is it illegal to take it into or out of the country if the proper papers have been filed. Yet almost to a person the alleged TSA people posting on the blog seem to deem it reasonable to report individuals carrying large sums of money.
In fact, this Fleming person has declared >$10,000 cash to be contraband along with illegal drugs and drug paraphernalia. If they say it enough, perhaps it will get to the point of reality. |
Originally Posted by doober
(Post 10990373)
Yet almost to a person the alleged TSA people posting on the blog seem to deem it reasonable to report individuals carrying large sums of money.
Unfortunately, the discussion is being had by lots of people who don't understand the reasons for the protections against abuse of power that we've built into our legal system. I suppose that to someone who doesn't "get it", the idea of TSA bag checkers taking the opportunity to assume everyone is a criminal and search them for things well outside of TSA's areas of interest is a good one. Those people seemingly cannot think abstractly, outside their own situation, and realize that in the long run, such a dragnet operation is bad news. They are probably concerned only with convenience and not with freedom. It's sad that we've developed such a culture, and it's going to take lots of effort to convince people that if we don't exercise our rights at times when we don't feel we need them, we are likely to find that we've lost them when the time comes that we really need them. |
the transportation of any (repeat, any) amount of currency solely within the borders of of the united states and its territories is completely legal-period.
any transportation of currency, foreign currency equivalent, or other negotiable instruments) whose value is greater than $10,000 u.s. is legal as well provided you fill out the proper paperwork. from the actual instructions... WHO MUST FILE: (1) Each person who physically transports, mails, or ships, or causes to be physically transported, mailed, or shipped currency or other monetary instruments in an aggregate amount exceeding $10,000 at one time from the United States to any place outside the United States or into the United States from any place outside the United States, and (2) Each person who receives in the United States currency or other monetary instruments In an aggregate amount exceeding $10,000 at one time which have been transported, mailed, or shipped to the person from any place outside the United States. A TRANSFER OF FUNDS THROUGH NORMAL BANKING PROCEDURES, WHICH DOES NOT INVOLVE THE PHYSICAL TRANSPORTATION OF CURRENCY OR MONETARY INSTRUMENTS, IS NOT REQUIRED TO BE REPORTED. do you know what the law regarding currency transportation is?" "are you a law enforcement officer?" "am i under arrest"? (bonus points as it's a trick question for them) "would you please bring the tsa terminal manager over along with a local or federal law enforcement officer" "thank you, i'll wait for them right here if you don't mind" |
Originally Posted by pmocek
(Post 10990656)
I think they believe that carrying large amounts of money is suspicious. What they don't seem to understand is that whether or not it seems suspicious, in this country we have limits on what sort of suspicion warrants detaining and searching someone, and traveling within the country with a bunch of cash doesn't cut it. It's clear as day to me that even though we've made this exception and allow warrantless searches for weapons, explosives, and incendiaries, the scope of those searches should not be extended to include things that we wouldn't otherwise be able to stop and search people for.
Unfortunately, the discussion is being had by lots of people who don't understand the reasons for the protections against abuse of power that we've built into our legal system. I suppose that to someone who doesn't "get it", the idea of TSA bag checkers taking the opportunity to assume everyone is a criminal and search them for things well outside of TSA's areas of interest is a good one. Those people seemingly cannot think abstractly, outside their own situation, and realize that in the long run, such a dragnet operation is bad news. They are probably concerned only with convenience and not with freedom. It's sad that we've developed such a culture, and it's going to take lots of effort to convince people that if we don't exercise our rights at times when we don't feel we need them, we are likely to find that we've lost them when the time comes that we really need them. Apparently in the TSA world there is no limit to their administrative search and it is quiet clear that many TSO's believe that. Now we know that Fleming decided that $10K cash is contraband. He even went so far as to put his name on a document that classses good old US greenbacks in the same category as illegal drugs and drug paraphernalia. Now wasn't that real american of him? With guys like him we no longer have need of a legislative branch of government. Won't that save some tax dollars I interested Fleming's company, the items they produce and any dealings with DHS/TSA. Dollars to a donut he is the winner of any number of non-competetive DHS/TSA contracts. I suspect a little more digging will turn up some unfinished compost. I have a spade and the time to break ground, although any help would be welcomed. |
Originally Posted by Boggie Dog
(Post 10989891)
Well, Blogdad Bob has finally posted some supposed justification for referring people to Law Enforcement just because the person happens to have a large amount of currency.
|
Originally Posted by DevilDog438
(Post 10991563)
Do you have a reference link?
Note the posting on 31 December at 12:31 PM. The post following this one is quiet enlightening on the mindset of your typical TSO> |
thanks
|
Blogger Bob went through some hoops to get you guys that information, too. Directives such as that are almost always considered to be SSI (the only ones that aren't, that I'm aware of, have to do with our dress code :P). For him to get that posted onto the Blog would have required a great deal of parlay with the office of the Administrator as he bandied back and forth with justification for doing it, and showing how it would be more beneficial to the mission than not releasing it (in this case, public opinion).
In the end, Kip Hawley would've had to given him written permission to release the full-text information of the Directive, and lift it from SSI protection. (By the way, this all goes on the assumption that it was SSI to begin with, and since it took this long, it most likely was.) |
Am I missing something? I don't see any reference to this Operational Directive in Bob's post, dated 12/31 at 3:29pm. I don't see a 12:31pm post. Perhaps it was edited?
|
Duplicating Bob's post here
I'm duplicating the blog post here to take away Bob's option to decide it was a mistake to publish the Operation Directive and delete his post.
Originally Posted by Blogger Bob
Blogger Bob said...
Anonymous Said: All I want and have repeatedly asked is for TSA to show me what directives they are operating under that requires them to refer anyone to additional screening/interrogation because the traveler has a large amount of cash and who the official is that signed this directive. Nothing more. ------------------------------ OK. Below are two items. One is an excerpt from the "A Word From Our Lawyers Blog Post" from TSA's Chief Counsel, Francine Kerner. The other is the Operations Directive you have been asking for. As far as passengers traveling domestically being referred to a supervisor for having $10,000 + of currency, this didn't happen back when i was a TSO. We only referred international passengers. Things may have changed, so I'm doing some research to get you an official answer. I also just e-mailed about 200 of my contacts from various locations around the country to see what's happening at their airports. Stay tuned... 2.21.2008 (From A Word With our Lawyers" Blog Post) I see that at least one person was troubled by the fact that TSA's screening of airline passengers sometimes yields evidence of crimes not directly related to aviation security. Our responsibility and focus in the airport screening process is to prevent a terrorist attack involving aircraft. In the course of carrying out our mission by screening for weapons and explosives, however, we sometimes incidentally discover illegal items unrelated to transportation security. Federal law and policy require that we refer such items to law enforcement officers for appropriate action. See, for example, United States v. Marquez, 410 F.3d 612, 617 (2005). Francine Kerner – TSA Chief Counsel Operation Directive: 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 TSA's Chief Operating Officer at the time, Jonathan J. Fleming For the rest of the document, (contact numbers and e-mails) please use the FOIA process for OD-400-54-2 Thanks, Bob EoS Blog Team |
Originally Posted by Blogger Bob
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) They have essentially extended their administrative search to search for contraband that is otherwise not illegal. They refer the cash to law enforcement, bypassing the probable cause requirement that cop would have had to search for the cash. And then depending on the cop's local rules, the cop may have the option to seize the cash with no other evidence what so ever and the burden of proof for recovery on the passenger. Yes, you risk such seizure if you drive down the street with $11K in your car, but you are protected because the cops can't go searching for that cash unless they have legitimate probable cause to search your person and/or vehicle. TSA has bypasses that completely and created an extremely high risk that any domestic air traveler traveling with cash is subject to a high risk of seizure. Those who don't believe slippery slopes of destroyed freedoms happen, and don't believe TSA is involved in these slippery slopes, need to consider this situation carefully. |
Originally Posted by scoow
Am I missing something? I don't see any reference to this Operational Directive in Bob's post, dated 12/31 at 3:29pm. I don't see a 12:31pm post. Perhaps it was edited?
Here's the link that should pop you right to it. Least it does on my screen. |
Originally Posted by HSVTSO Dean
(Post 10992492)
Here's the link that should pop you right to it. Least it does on my screen.
But I'm sure it's one of those ID-10-T errors on my part. ;) Is it in a comment re. the "Ring in the New Year, Not the Walk Through Metal Detector" post? If so, I see 11 comments; none containing the info. quoted by studentff. |
Originally Posted by scoow
(Post 10992689)
"Sorry, the page you requested was not found." :eek:
But I'm sure it's one of those ID-10-T errors on my part. ;) Is it in a comment re. the "Ring in the New Year, Not the Walk Through Metal Detector" post? If so, I see 11 comments; none containing the info. quoted by studentff. http://www.tsa.gov/blog/2008/12/tsa-on-60-minutes.html |
Originally Posted by doober
(Post 10992702)
Soow, the info is in the thread preceding the Santa at the WTMD,
http://www.tsa.gov/blog/2008/12/tsa-on-60-minutes.html Knew it would turn out to be one of those ID-10-T errors. :o |
Originally Posted by HSVTSO Dean
(Post 10991887)
Blogger Bob went through some hoops to get you guys that information, too. Directives such as that are almost always considered to be SSI (the only ones that aren't, that I'm aware of, have to do with our dress code :P). For him to get that posted onto the Blog would have required a great deal of parlay with the office of the Administrator as he bandied back and forth with justification for doing it, and showing how it would be more beneficial to the mission than not releasing it (in this case, public opinion).
In the end, Kip Hawley would've had to given him written permission to release the full-text information of the Directive, and lift it from SSI protection. (By the way, this all goes on the assumption that it was SSI to begin with, and since it took this long, it most likely was.) I'm curious what the TSA screeners are taught in the concept of administrative search for prohibited items versus acting as an agent in an unlawful search since I don't seem to see the criminal statue of having $10.01K on my person. Has any TSA screener actually brought this up during your recurrency training? During initial? Personally I'm still trying to figure out the front page of the www.tsa.gov web site where announces how many people were arrested at a TSA check point for "13 passengers were arrested due to suspicious behavior". Which state or federal criminal statue is that, "suspicious behavior"? Me thinks the TSA (and its screeners) would not recognize the Bill of Rights if it was laying next to the paper shredder. But I do what I can each time I go thru a TSA check point. Private screening certainly is very inconvenient to the 2 or 3 screeners, especially when dealing with me. |
Originally Posted by studentff
(Post 10992409)
This text is extremely telling about TSA's mentality. They lump cash in with illegal drugs as a form of contraband. Illegal drugs are in fact contraband (though I have serious doubts as to if TSA should be reporting them), but CASH IS NOT CONTRABAND.
They have essentially extended their administrative search to search for contraband that is otherwise not illegal. They refer the cash to law enforcement, bypassing the probable cause requirement that cop would have had to search for the cash. And then depending on the cop's local rules, the cop may have the option to seize the cash with no other evidence what so ever and the burden of proof for recovery on the passenger. Yes, you risk such seizure if you drive down the street with $11K in your car, but you are protected because the cops can't go searching for that cash unless they have legitimate probable cause to search your person and/or vehicle. TSA has bypasses that completely and created an extremely high risk that any domestic air traveler traveling with cash is subject to a high risk of seizure. Those who don't believe slippery slopes of destroyed freedoms happen, and don't believe TSA is involved in these slippery slopes, need to consider this situation carefully. Then again, maybe you can afford having 25% of your paycheck garnished by order of a federal judge for ten years. |
how to browse directly to a comment on TSA blog
Originally Posted by scoow
(Post 10992689)
"Sorry, the page you requested was not found."
|
Originally Posted by pmocek
(Post 10994541)
That's due to a problem with the TSA blog.
*Though being a TSA product, it shouldn't be a surprise. |
FOIA request for TSA's cash=contraband operational directive
I have submitted a FOIA request for the TSA operational directive Blogger Bob cited (OD-400-54-20, "Discovery of Contraband During the Screening Process", May 9, 2005). I plan to follow-up here after fulfillment of the request.
Following is a template that others can use to do the same: Code:
From: <me>A FOIA request can be submitted by mail, fax or E-mail. By mail Transportation Security Administration Freedom of Information Act Office, TSA-20 11th Floor, East Tower 601 South 12th Street Arlington, VA 22202-4220 By fax (571) 227-1406 By E-mail [email protected] Your FOIA/PA request must contain the following information: Your name, address and telephone number. If you have an email address, please provide it. Specify whether you are making a FOIA or Privacy Act (PA) request. Provide specific detailed information about the records you are seeking. Indicate what format you would like the information requested to be provided to you in, if it is other than paper. State your willingness to pay any fees and indicate how much you are willing to pay as advance authorization to process. If you are mailing your request please prominently mark on the envelope "FOIA Request." In addition, prior to submitting a FOIA request you may want to search our web page to see if the information is already posted. You should receive an acknowledgement letter within 4-5 business days after your request has been received. This letter will contain a TSA tracking number for your request, which is needed when contacting our office. Should you need additional assistance, feel free to contact the FOIA Headquarters Office at toll free 866-364-2872 (866- FOIA-TSA). |
Phil, I wish I would have know you were doing a FOIA request. There is a letter generator located here that makes it easy to make a letter that includes the FOIA statutes and deadlines. Below is a copy of the first FOIA request I am making.
Michael Cummings address redacted January 1, 2009 Transportation Security Administration TSA-20, West Tower FOIA Division 601 South 12th Street Arlington, VA 22202-4220 FOIA REQUEST Dear FOI Officer: Pursuant to the federal Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552, I request access to and copies of any records, including but not limited to memos, e-mails, internal communications, external communications, minutes, or notes, pertaining to or referencing a TSA Blog poster known as Trollkiller. I would like to receive the information in electronic format. I agree to pay reasonable duplication fees for the processing of this request in an amount not to exceed $20. However, please notify me prior to your incurring any expenses in excess of that amount. If my request is denied in whole or part, I ask that you justify all deletions by reference to specific exemptions of the act. I will also expect you to release all segregable portions of otherwise exempt material. I, of course, reserve the right to appeal your decision to withhold any information or to deny a waiver of fees. I look forward to your reply within 20 business days, as the statute requires. Thank you for your assistance. Sincerely, Michael Cummings |
I just sent my Congresspeople e-mails quoting Blogger Bob about >$10,000 being contraband and asking why this was allowed to happen.
Will it bring any results? Quien sabe? ~~ I also posted the same on the Obama website, change.gov, where the most popular question is: "Will President Obama eliminate domestic warrantless wiretapping of US citizens by modifying the "Terrorist Surveillance Program" (TSP)? Is the Fourth Amendment going to be restored, or weakened further by the Obama Administration?" |
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. |
Originally Posted by SgtScott31
(Post 10999268)
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. Why would you or any other LEO investigate? If I had $9,999.99 by TSA standards I would be ok, yet with $10,000.00 I suddenly become some internatioanl terrorist. In either case Transportation Safety has not been threatend. What documentation must I have to possess a perfectally legal item? Since when? Please quote the law? So I have to prove that I am not guilty of a crime instead of you proving I am? You can act on some TSO dweebs call who thinks they have a big catch and you respond without reasonable suspection. Is that how the law works in your state? What a sad state of affairs for our country. |
Should we place any limits on scope of TSA searches at airports?
Originally Posted by SgtScott31
(Post 10999268)
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.
But while we're on the topic of your opinion: Regardless of the current state of the law, what do you think the limits of these searches we have allowed in order to enhance transportation security should be? I don't like the fact that something that a TSA baggage checker finds in someone's personal belongings that is completely unrelated to the safety of his fellow airline passengers could lead to an investigation of him. It's no more appropriate than setting up a roadblock or just having police stop people walking down the sidewalk and searching them for any of those same things. In my opinion, nothing else found during such an airport search should be admissible as evidence in court. This would help keep TSA focused on their duties and leave law enforcement up to those who are trained to enforce the law in a constitutional manner. I do understand, however, that many people figure once TSA is pawing around in our bags, anything they see that clearly indicates wrongdoing should be fair game. I disagree, but won't argue. But let's consider the limits of TSA's searches a little differently. What about the things that do not clearly indicate wrongdoing? What about jewelry? Does the wearing of jewelry at an airport checkpoint warrant police involvement? What if it appeared to be very expensive jewelry? What if the person wearing the jewelry didn't appear to be able to afford to purchase such jewelry? Would it be justifiable to stop and hassle that person -- perform secondary searches, check his IRS records, interrogate him -- because some TSA bag checker thought it seemed like this particular jewelry was an indication of his wrongdoing?
Originally Posted by SgtScott31
(Post 10999268)
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.
Originally Posted by SgtScott31
(Post 10999268)
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.
SgtScott31, how would you feel about us setting up checkpoints like the TSA's, but out at miscellaneous places? Let's say that it was economically feasible to erect these "public security checkpoints" and that the searches could be performed in just a minute or so. Should we just set up checkpoints wherever we can fit them to search everyone in search of the few bad people? It sounds like you would prefer to live in a police state. |
Originally Posted by SgtScott31
(Post 10999268)
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.
|
Originally Posted by SgtScott31
(Post 10999268)
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.
Originally Posted by SgtScott31
(Post 10999268)
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.
Same thing with cash. If I come through with $15,000 of cash, it might be for something illegal, it might not. The point is that it is not per se illegal to carry that cash. The question is why the TSA needs to refer something to LEO's when it is not per se illegal. |
Here we go again with all this seizure crap. Come on people! Would anyone here let ANYONE simply take their money? I doubt it.....There is simply noway of posting my next question without there being a 1,000 additional "what ifs" that could be added to it. For the sake of this post we will assume all facts are as stated.....Anyone show me 1 case where an individual had more than $10K in cash and seemed for all practical purposes to not be of a criminal nature and had their money seized without a fight....100% of the time when I fly I have more than $10k and have never been asked anymore than what was my profession. It just doesn't make sense. With the seemingly endless cases people try and refer to one would think seizures happen all the time. It is not possible they happen even 1% of the amount that "seem" to happen. All you would here about on the news is people getting into a monster fight at the airport because some goof tried to take someone's money."King Kong himself could not make me give up my hard earned money".I can't believe I am alone in this thinking.Granted; I am not a criminal and did not obtain the funds by illegal means,but that is irrelevant.I just don't buy it.
|
Originally Posted by KTW
(Post 11002414)
Here we go again with all this seizure crap. Come on people! Would anyone here let ANYONE simply take their money?
The Man wants your money, The Man's going to take it. If you're lucky, you'll get a receipt. |
Originally Posted by KTW
(Post 11002414)
Here we go again with all this seizure crap. Come on people! Would anyone here let ANYONE simply take their money? I doubt it.....There is simply noway of posting my next question without there being a 1,000 additional "what ifs" that could be added to it. For the sake of this post we will assume all facts are as stated.....Anyone show me 1 case where an individual had more than $10K in cash and seemed for all practical purposes to not be of a criminal nature and had their money seized without a fight....100% of the time when I fly I have more than $10k and have never been asked anymore than what was my profession. It just doesn't make sense. With the seemingly endless cases people try and refer to one would think seizures happen all the time. It is not possible they happen even 1% of the amount that "seem" to happen. All you would here about on the news is people getting into a monster fight at the airport because some goof tried to take someone's money."King Kong himself could not make me give up my hard earned money".I can't believe I am alone in this thinking.Granted; I am not a criminal and did not obtain the funds by illegal means,but that is irrelevant.I just don't buy it.
|
Originally Posted by doober
(Post 11002872)
Unless I missed something, this discussion is NOT about seizing cash but rather the TSA regularly referring individuals legally carrying large amounts of cash to law enforcement.
They apparently are required to do so! That is the problem in a nutshell. That pretty well describes the actions of a "Police State". |
Originally Posted by Boggie Dog
(Post 11003287)
They apparently are required to do so!
That is the problem in a nutshell. That pretty well describes the actions of a "Police State". |
The $10k mark is misconstrued by TSA personnel. While the IRS may possibly tax amounts over $10k that leaves the US, since we have no outbound international flights where I work, the $10k mark is not significant.
That's supposed to be left up to a judge or jury, not to you. What documentation must I have to possess a perfectally legal item? Since when? Please quote the law? So I have to prove that I am not guilty of a crime instead of you proving I am? You can act on some TSO dweebs call who thinks they have a big catch and you respond without reasonable suspection. Is that how the law works in your state? But while we're on the topic of your opinion: Regardless of the current state of the law, what do you think the limits of these searches we have allowed in order to enhance transportation security should be? I travel with some unlabeled pills in a M T W T F S S travel case. The pills could be controlled substances illegally posessed, yet there is nothing to suggest that they are. If a TSO sees these, should they notify the CP LEO? By your logic, you would deprive me of my medication because it could be illegal unless I can prove what it is. How do you determine this? Have them search for a 1040 on the spot? |
Originally Posted by SgtScott31
(Post 11003583)
The $10k mark is misconstrued by TSA personnel. While the IRS may possibly tax amounts over $10k that leaves the US, since we have no outbound international flights where I work, the $10k mark is not significant.
It is reported. That is all. |
Originally Posted by SgtScott31
(Post 11003583)
If a couple of pills are rolled up in a baggie and/or artfully concealed, then yes, we are normally called.
|
Originally Posted by SgtScott31
(Post 11003583)
The $10k mark is misconstrued by TSA personnel. While the IRS may possibly tax amounts over $10k that leaves the US, since we have no outbound international flights where I work, the $10k mark is not significant.
It is left up to a federal judge when currency is confiscated. That is, if the person even wants to contest the seizure, which they rarely do. It's not there's to begin with. They're just the mule carrying it to buy the drugs. Ask the DEA on the federal laws regarding money seizures. I'm sure they're out there if you do the appropriate searches. I detain the person for DEA and let them take over. sp = reasonable "suspicion." This is how the law works nationally. With that said, I will reinforce KTW's post. Compared to the amount of people that come through the checkpoint with a significant amount of money, the numbers are small to those who have it confiscated versus those who don't. For those who have money confiscated, a simple conversation will easily tell the story. Like I said in my first post, these folks expect the money to be confiscated. And they will try again down the road if it is. I never disagreed that TSA should pay specific attention to items that could be a threat to an aircraft, but to reverse the question, where do you think the line should be drawn? My opinion, if a TSO is doing a standard bag search and discovers contraband, whether a brick of cocaine or 1000 pictures of child pornography, I don't expect them to turn a blind eye to it (as some of you astoundingly do) and never will. If you were the parents of those children in the pictures, you may have a different viewpoint. These types of searches and discoveries have been going on since the inception of FAA rules about flying commercially. There will always be bag searches and searches of persons in order to gain entry to a commercial aircraft. If something else is discovered during this search, while not even a direct threat to the aircraft, it's going to be reported. I will never see this as any type of violation of Constitutional rights. Every person in this country knows what happens at security checkpoints at airports. Every person knows they have a right to use some other form of transportation if they want to carry something with them that is prohibited or illegal. It's a consensual search period. While some of the policies are unnecessary to say the least, I have yet to see anything that indicates "police states" are being created and checkpoints will pour out onto our streets. Outside the checkpoint, I still need reasonable suspicion to stop a vehicle or terry frisk a person; and I still need probable cause to search a vehicle or person and/or make an arrest. This has not changed. I have never been called to the checkpoint about the Sun - Sat pill cases. We have a toll-free number to call for pill identification and/or appropriate books to identify pills. 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). Question and answer. Believe it or not those that seize the money give the person every opportunity to prove that it is legitimate. Problem is, they can't. Being yanked out of a line and questioned by anyone, TSA or LEO, because I just happen to have some amount of cash is the makings of a "Police State". Remember it is a TSA document that has determined that $10K is contraband. Not any other agency, just TSA. So next week TSA in all it's great wisdom decides anyone who reads "Readers Digest" is a subversive. I guess you'll be in there carrying water for the TSA since they must know what is going on. |
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 4:13 pm. |
This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.