I don't see them as trashing every TSA employee. If anything, the TSA as an organization is disparaged while certain screeners during a situation in question may or may not have been called morons. Like it or not, some of them deserve the title. Not all do - there are screeners that get our respect even though the organization they work for is dispised - HSVTSODean comes to mind.

And there are those here that are on the NoFly Lists and harassment lists even though being elites as well. TSA's even flagged my 4 year old as a security threat - now THAT was idiotic and moronic and I'll still say that.

Kinda like now, except there are government employees causing the confusion instead of low paid screeners. Incidentally, many of those same people doing pre-9/11 screening were hired into TSA. If you look over at the TSA Blog, you'll see that even amongst the TSA screeners that respond there, all give conflicting information. I don't think they do it intentionally, but it does show that TSA has training and management issues that haven't been resolved, nor seems to have any interest in correcting.

Well, in one of those cases, TSA really didn't have any business screening him and he was right to decline. TSA didn't want to follow its own procedures and escort him out. Instead, they bullied him with a cop. And he hadn't even entered the inspection area.

There is no requirement to speak to a SPOTter either. I think if anything, not talking to them and telling about the experience, good or bad is a productive thing.

Of course, it works both ways. We see much of the same thing out of TSA. When they do something wrong, they usually start character assassination on either the Mythbusters site or in a press release. Citing MKEBound as combative in a press release is a prime example. It's an organization that refuses to take responsibility and continuously backs screeners when they mess up.

No, the issue is that Ma and Pa Kettle shouldn't have to go thru those invasive screenings either. However, since they don't have to deal with it on a regular basis like an FF, they're more likely to grin and bear it and/or not care because it doesn't affect them.

Some of that hatred is deserved though.

And you consider that a complete answer. Sheez! :confused:

I'll play the game for the first part of your "answer with a question answer"....
When I pass through the WTMD, at those stations where the TSO's require it (~50% IME), I pass them the BP for the first leg of my flight. If I'm going international I (usually, thankfully) never see a TSO on my travel again for my subsequent legs.

I'll rephrase the question to try and help you give a non-evasive answer,
If 1) I'm at a "don't show the BP at the WMTD" airport, or 2) if I'm flying XXX-YYY-ZZZ, where XXX and YYY are domestic and ZZZ is international,
How in blazes does the TS"O" know I'm flying YYY-ZZZ (that would be the international leg), so (s)he can determine if my currency needs a strict counting to determine if it's above their arbitrary determination of substantial?

The last time I walked through a TSA metal detector, I showed him absolutely nothing. The TSO told me that he didn't need to see my identification.

(For some reason, he also said something about not having the droids he was looking for. But that might've been directed to the old guy in the brown robe behind me in line.)

So, the original point stands. When a TSO discovers a "large" quantity of cash in a passenger's belongings, there is no particular reason to assume that the passenger is violating the law.

It was an attempt to get you to think for yourself. Something not well thought of around here I know, but one can always try.

OK, so now you know. Some boarding passes have the full itinerary listed on them, depends on the carrier. Most will staple all boarding passes together. As we look through them for the information we need to verify at the WTMD we also note final destination.

See above. In those cases where we do not have the boarding pass for the international leg of the trip and cannot know where you plan to finish your trip other than the last destination on the boarding pass in hand, we cant. If a large amount of cash is noted in your bag, or found on your person during a search, we will most likely ask. Or we may not. Depends on the TSO. You can refuse to answer if you like, I’m certainly not going to jump up and down on your chest trying to get it out of you, but then we are back to the point of consequences for actions. If you act like a jerk, my guess is that they are going to treat you like a jerk. There are better ways to answer the questions asked, and there is no need to be offensive. Think about it, I’m sure as someone who thinks of himself as a reasonable person that you can come to an answer, of some kind.

You are correct, at least in one respect. I inaccurately stated TSA web-site when I should have stated EOS Blog. You might see why some of us would consider that a distinction without a difference.

Does your answer help? No, it doesn't.
For Q#2, I gave a direct quote of some completely wrong statement you were certain of. (Quoting you: "The fact is that I am correct") Saying that a clarification is on the web-site does not provide the retraction or correction I think those that read your first error deserve. If a retraction/correction is on the EOS blog, I don't recall seeing it; perhaps a direct quote would be more helpful.

For Q#3, thanks for the link. It regurgitates, accurately AFAIK, the currency reporting requirements, which have, again, AFAIK, existed for many years. The information seems to have been provided by CBP, and looks fairly professional. However, it doesn't show any nexus between currency transport and aircraft security. Perhaps the question was btter phrased as "How much cash does it take to bring down an airliner?"
Care to try again?

From my point of view, no I wouldn’t. We each have a different perspective, the difference to me is huge.

Would you like a tissue? To find it, you are going to have to look for it. Its not hidden, covered by sand, or thinner than air. Spend some time, you might find some other things that are interesting on the way.

There need not be a “nexus”. Sorry, but a directive to us from HQ TSA is sufficient for me, even if not for you. A traffic cop need not change jobs to arrest someone for theft, nor a TSO to question large amounts of cash in a bag. It’s a simple thing, answer the TSO’s question or don’t. Either way there is a consequence.

As for the “how much” theory, it is basically an inane question. How mu cocaine does it take? How much meth? How many bullets? How about Scotch? You may not see the causal locus, but then again you are not a security professional.

Oh, this is fun. So, thinking for myself, as you so courteously suggested, sure, if this is an airport where the BP is re-checked at the WTMD, and if the BP is NW, or if all BP's are stapled together (never done IME on DL, CO, NW, UA, US, LH, AC, or home printed or kiosk printed BP's of any airline) and if the crack travel document checker has memorized that, for instance, MEL is not Melbourne, FL, then the crack travel document checker will know if the pax is slated for an international itinerary. But the crack travel document checker at the WTMD has no idea what's in the pax bag. :confused:
If these 3 rather unlikely in toto "if's" do all line up, the crack travel document checker knows the pax may soon leave the country, but how do the people doing the bag check, who subsequently note a "lump" of cash in the bag, know that this is a pax on an international itin?

"If a large amount of cash is noted in your bag, or found on your person during a search, we will most likely ask. Or we may not. Depends on the TSO." I presume you mean ask whether the pax is on an international itinerary. If I co-operate, (unlikely since this search and questioning combo has gone beyond an administrative search and is IMHO, pretty clearly illegal) in all cases but NW, if the TSO decided to pursue, pax just shows you the BP for my first leg, and they're done? :confused:

And how do any of you know that the pax wasn't going to file the appropriate paperwork at this final stop before leaving the country.

Note to TSORon; Need more layers, about 500 of them, given this plan's inherently inept structure. Or maybe, just maybe, you take your own advice, think for yourself, and conclude the TSA does not have the qualifications, the intelligence, the skill, the wherewithall, to enforce currency transfer regs. :rolleyes:
Note to self: As someone else here suggested, Need a thick stack of 1's sandwiched between 2 @ $100 bills when I have some spare time. Apparently a butter knife will add to the hilarity. Then I can act like a "jerk" by continuing to insist that the 1st, 4th and 5th constitutional amendments have not been suspended just because some silly blue smurf (oops; sorry; security professional :p) with a tin badge wants to know things (s)he has no right to even ask about.

What's the link to the TSA Blog?

www.tsa.gov/blog

See, you bag on people for having a myopic perspective, yet you can't even look to see how someone else is thinking - something you've been bagging on since you got here.

Physician, heal thyself.

The invite's open for you to do the same and look past the koolaid.

At least in every locality I've lived in, traffic cops are full LEO's and can bust people for theft if seen.

Just because you have a "directive" from someone up above doesn't make it legal to follow. Francine can't even give legal reasons for why TSA's doing what it's doing - just citing unrelated law that TSA has questionable ability, if any at all to "enforce."

Some of those fall into the purview of TSA's mission, some don't. Money isn't contraband, no matter how you slice it. Therefore, how much is germaine to the argument that TSA is making that it's a big deal. Is it 10k, or is it less?

A TSA screener is not a "security professional" no matter how many times you assert that. Likewise, I wouldn't be tossiing around "you're not a security professional" without knowing the backgrounds of those involved. Many of us work in the security field and have much more extensive backgrounds than a TSA screener.

And we finally get to a place where we may be able to reach some common ground.

I will agree wholeheartedly that "there is no need to be offensive." And I'll set aside the fact that asking me personal questions about my finances or travel plans is something I (and many others) find to be offensive. Now; if you will just tell me how to properly phrase the sentiment, "I don't care to discuss my travel or finances with total strangers; I will discuss any legal compliance issues with the appropriate agency." I pledge to use your recommended phrasing in the future, thus doing my part to defuse any potential confrontation.

Thanks.

Ron, here is where you and I part ways.

Let's follow the train of logic regarding the TSA's questioning money being carried.

1. The Constitution prohibits unreasonable searches and guarantees each of us the right to remain silent.

2. The TSA was established to make air travel safe. That is its only purpose.

3. No one is required to subject himself to an inspection but he waives that right in order to enter the sterile area. This is logical because it is the only way that the TSA can check to see if he is carrying anything with him that can endanger air travel.

4. The TSA screener is only to look for dangerous materials. Of course, if in the course of his inspection, he happens to see something which is either in itself illegal or evidence of a crime, he has the obligation to report it to LEOs. In this, he is in the same position as a police officer who pulls me over for speeding and sees hand grenades on the back seat of my car.

5. That same police officer, seeing nothing incriminating in my car, has no right to tell me to open the trunk so that he can look inside. That would be a violation of my Constitutional rights.

6. A TSA screener, having seen nothing illegal (and cash is not illegal) has no right to require me to allow him to count it or insist that I tell him how much I have with me. Should he call an LEO, that LEO also has no right to demand to know how much money I have with me -- unless he knows that I am leaving the country, or have just entered it, and that the money is obviously above the $10,000 limit (such as a suitcase full of large bills). In that case, he would have probable cause to count the money and ascertain whether or not I have declared it on FinCen Form 105.

A boarding pass showing (at least it did the last time I flew internationally) SNA-SEA. What clue will that give you that I need to declare any amount of currency in SNA?

I disagree. "probable cause" means probable cause that a crime has been committed. Seeing $20,000 of cash on a person traveling internationally says nothing about whether that person filed the proper form or not and you don't have "probable cause" to question about that money unless you have some evidence that the form wasn't submitted. Otherwise, you have what's known as a "fishing expedition", which is quite illegal.

At MCO and BUF nothing is asked for at the WTMD, and I'm thrilled to show it. :D

Dovster, I agree with your very logical and rational analysis, except for one point:

"Of course, if in the course of his inspection, he happens to see something which is either in itself illegal or evidence of a crime, he has the obligation to report it to LEOs. In this, he is in the same position as a police officer who pulls me over for speeding and sees hand grenades on the back seat of my car."

This is not correct. In this, he is in the same position as any private citizen who sees something that he may feel is violative of the law. A TSO's employer may require that the TSO report what he sees to a LEO. A TSO, however, has no legal powers to detain or arrest, unlike a police officer, no legal powers to demand that a person identify himself, unlike a police officer, and no exigency provisions that justify warrantless searches, unlike a police officer.

As you've correctly noted, all he can do is deny entrance to the sterile area and, per internal TSA employment policy, he must report what he has seen to a LEO. That's it.

I think that I was unclear by what I meant when I said "he is in the same position as a police officer who pulls me over for speeding and sees hand grenades on the back seat of my car."

I did not mean that the TSA screener has the same legal authority as an LEO. I meant that, just like the police officer in my scenario, the screener has not violated my Constitutional rights because he saw something which was in his plain sight.

I will leave it to the lawyers (like PTravel) to correct me if I am wrong, but it is my belief that having filed an FinCen Form 105 is the same as having a valid driving license.

If a police officer sees me driving, he has the right to demand that I show my license. Likewise, if he sees me with a large amount of money, which is obviously above $10,000 and knows that I have entered the country or am on my way out of it, he can demand to see the FinCen Form 105.

correct but to be clear...it has to be a leo and not a tsa employee as the tsa does not have that authority

Why? Isn't the form only for CBP use?

Dovster, even in this situation only an LEO should be able to demand to see the form. At a security checkpoint, LEOs are the only ones with real law enforcement powers.

Anything that TSOs ask you should be construed as pure curiosity and nosiness, depending upon how it is phrased, as they have no real enforcement powers.

^

I've said it before, but it's worth repeating: The law does not require anyone to answer any questions asked by a TSO. If you don't answer, the most they can do is deny you entrance to the sterile area, at which time you should consult with your airline's GSC.

Let's clarify that. A TSA employee can ask to see anything -- as can the guy standing in line after you. You, of course, are free to refuse to show it to either of them. The TSA screener can call for an LEO; so can the guy behind you -- the only difference being that the TSA screener can refuse to let you into the sterile area until the LEO shows up.

I may be wrong but I don't think the screener would ask to see the FinCen Form 105. He would call the LEO. Personally, if I had the FinCen Form 105 on me, and knew that I would be waiting for an LEO to arrive, I would probably offer it to the screener just to get through the whole process.

Actually for the Department of the Treasury. CBP collects the forms at prots of exit/entry and then transmits them to the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN), a part of the Department of the Treasury.

Let's be clearer. ;)

There are two separate concerns, here.

One relates to the First Amendment, the other relates to the Fifth Amendment.

Yes, screeners have First Amendment rights and can ask whatever they want. However, the whole rationale against self-incrimination under the 5th Amendment is the idea that questioning by the government can, in many cases, be coercive. It certainly is when a policeman questions after you've asked to have an attorney present. However, when a government agent says, "Answer my questions or you're not flying today," it is, in my opinion, just as coercive and, therefore, violative of the 5th Amendment.

Accordingly, in this regard, I don't think the TSO has the right to ask any substantive questions. "Nice day, isn't it?" is okay. "Is this a bag of marijuana?" clearly is not okay. In my opinion, however, neither is, "Why are you flying to Omaha?"

I believe that a police officer does not have to tell me my Miranda rights until such time as I am under arrest, isn't that right? Indeed, if an LEO sees me with an unlit, hand rolled, cigarette but has no reason beyond its looks to suspect that it is marijuana he is free to ask me if it is.

I am free to ignore his question and walk away.

The TSA screener, who can not arrest me, is therefore free to ask whatever he wants -- and I am free to refuse to answer.

I think free in this case should be used loosely. You're free to refuse the answer, and the TSO will be "free" to deny entrance to the sterile area. Thus the way that TSA is making it out with the cash, they're practically conditioning entry into the sterile area upon waiving your 5th amendment rights if asked.

PTravel can feel free to correct me if I'm wrong and I won't take offense. :)

You guys are going to be in big trouble when TSORon gets back to this. He has the right to determine what he'll do after your interview at his CP, based on your co-operation/attitude as measured by your willingness to answer his interview questions.
He staffs an airport professional security check-point, doncha know, where your alleged rights matter not a whit.

But where does this take us? What can a TSO possibly ask that results in entry denial?

I see typical dialog going as:

TSO: Are you leaving the country with those funds?
Pax: No
Now the TSO has to go further to the clearly impermissible area, ie where did you get the money? What is your "final" destination? Did you commit a crime to get that money? etc.

or:

TSO: Are you leaving the country with those funds?
Pax: Yes
TSO (puffs up): Well will you submit the appropriate IRS froms prior to leaving the country?
Pax: Yes
Again the TSO has to go further to the clearly impermissible area, ie where did you get the money? Did you commit a crime to get that money? etc.

It's very telling to me that these discussions, at least from TSA's perspective, always hinge on cash. The same regs apply to any instrument that moves funds across the country's borders, and I'm sure Goalie knows many obscure instruments that can achieve this, but you never hear the TSO's salivating over a bearer bond or a cashier's check as they do over cash. IMHO, the TSA fascination with the flash of cash either comes from a wrong-headed presumption of guilt or an attractivenss for the sticky-fingered amongst the ranks.

That's correct, and anything you say before being Mirandized is, generally, not going to be admissible.

Yep.

And he's free to detain you and examine the hand-rolled cigarette that was in plain sight. That is "reasonable suspicion."

A policeman who asks substantive questions pre-Mirandizing is going to get a stern lecture from his sergeant. A TSO has no business asking coercive questions because they perform absolutely no useful function.

No, I agree with you. That's why, if a TSO denied me entrance to the sterile area for refusing to answer something like, "Why are you going to Montana?", I get the GSC and let him or her sort it out. Though, I imagine, just the mere fact that I was going to Montana would probably call my mental stability into question. ;)

Montana has good skiing. ;)

I was under the impression it is OK to mail the form before you leave the country. If that is correct, the the LEO can't really see it. And if I already gave it to CBP it's also gone. So, basically the LEO has to take my word for it.

In all my 40+ years of international flying I don't think I have ever seen a Boarding Pass with the whole itinerary printed on it. Most airlines do not staple all BPs together. And if someone would do that, I would very quickly separate them and give you the single BP you need to do your job.

And yes, I am a security professional. A card-carrying ASIS member at that.

That's my experience as well.

And there is where you step off the path of knowledge. I posted links to the relevant laws and acts of Congress. I hope you read them, but it does not seem so.

So far so good. We have an understanding.

Correct, he cannot TELL you to open it, but there is no law prohibiting him from asking you to open it. You still retain the right to say no.

Also correct, as far as it goes. The same applies here to the TSO as it does to the previous example of the law enforcement officer and the trunk, he can ask you about it. Must you answer? No, of course not. Can he call a LEO? Sure he can.

Once again the LEO cannot demand you answer his questions. Cannot force you. But he can ask, and he can run background checks, NCIC checks, TSA lists, and a whole host of other things if he so chooses. Because he has Reasonable Suspicion. Just as the LEO did in St. Louis. With that he might be able to generate Probable Cause, and thereby find authorization for a more in-depth discussion. I’m sure PTraveler wont agree, but this is the way it has been done by police officers since the age of computers began.

Constitution trumps Congress. It doesn't mean that Congress can't pass unconstitutional laws. It just means they have to be reviewed and can be stricken down.

On what grounds? He won't give up his rights and tell me what I don't need to know? I'm telling! :rolleyes:

So pretty much, you just confirmed that TSA is really just a big LEO fishing expedition. Best to say nothing.

You guys really are like the mob: won't talk? We'll beat it out of you. And we'll find something to make your life hell while we're here.

And where does the reasonable suspicion come from? I've sat in court rooms where judges say that silence CANNOT be construed as suspicion or guilt - it CAN'T be held against anyone. And considering that the guy in STL was on a domestic itinerary and had less than $5k, there was no reasonable suspicion. It was a TSO trying to make a guy's life hell. :td:

You don't see how that goes against the "freedoms" you claim to protect?

God help us all.

What reasonable suspicion? He had less than $5,000 on him and was on a domestic itinerary.

Any luck on finding out if metal butter knives are permitted through your checkpoint? I do want to ensure that I am following TSA rules.

Ron, with all due respect and humility, I would be happy to compare resumes anytime. Your perspective of "security" is constrained by your airport and the procedures you are given. Many of us on this board, including myself, have had real interactions with real senior managers of both the TSA and the DHS. Many of us have the clearances which allow us access to the raw information that eventually turns into "SOP" and "SSI" information. Many of us, with decades of experience in the national security business, have very different views and perspectives about what the raw information tells us. We have advocated and, on occasion, published opposing views, albeit in classified channels.

If you, given your perspective, could have had the opportunity to broaden your horizons and see what we have seen, I suspect you're a bright enough guy to conclude that you are being used as pawns in personal agendas. Believe me, in the grand scheme of things, your job is to portray an illusion of "security" to the public and that's it. That's really too bad, because way too many innocent Americans are being caught in the crossfire.

What we experience at America's airports as personified by all of you wearing the spiffy blue "intimidating" uniforms is simply a manifestation of a series of really bad decisions made since 9/11/2001.

Reasonble suspicion of what? :confused:

Not that TSORon has much idea what he's writing about, but Northwest airlines, the smallest of the majors, does currently do this, at least for domestic itins. Stapling? might be an individual TA preference.
Likelihood of WTMD minder caring or recognizing an international itin? I would estimate < 1%. Likelihood of this info transferring accurately to X-ray minder who then recognizes real big cash $$$ on X-ray image? (~1%squared), ie 1 in 10,000.
Likelihood of the X-ray minder recognizing lump o'cash $$$ on X-ray image and working back to determine pax is on int'l itin? much higher.
Likelihood if pax has any wit, and a >1 leg boarding pass? Effectively "0"

OK, my fault. I think I flew NW once in the mid-80's so the slip is excusable, I hope. :cool: