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.
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?

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.
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 ) 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.

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.