Based on TSORon's original question on the "TSA and the law" thread I have decided to play Devil's Advocate in hopes of getting his questions answered.

Ground Rules:

• I am playing Devil's Advocate, I may or may not believe in the righteousness of the arguments I put forth.
• Stick to the topic, if this goes well I will create other threads for other topics. Example this first thread is about the legality and constitutionality of referring someone to a local LEO for having a "large" amount of cash or other legal "contraband", do not bring up obviously illegal items like dope, or kiddie porn.

Game on.


Large amounts of cash.

It is common knowledge that nefarious individuals tend to keep large amounts of cash on hand to prevent the tracking of income by law enforcement. When a TSO discovers a �large� amount of cash while performing a search the TSO has every right to question the PAX to the nature of the cash to determine if the PAX needs to be referred to a LEO. The TSO is acting in his capacity as a Federal Officer.

Your turn.

TK, that's strictly an American prejudice. Most other cultures don't find anything suspicious about using cash. That's one of the reasons that the Americans have become so hated in Iraq -- for the first few years, at their numerous checkpoints, they would regularly confiscate "large amounts" of cash (typically anything from 2 - 100K USD) because, in their view, such quantities of cash could "only" be for people funding the insurgency, forgetting in their narrow cultural prejudices, that the Iraqi banking system was barely functioning, so if you were buying a house or a car, you brought cash.

But of course that is true in many places where the banking is functioning well. I remember when I was living in Poland and I went to a travel agent and booked a package holiday. The agent asked how I would pay and I said "cash" and pulled out 4000 USD. The guy just looks at me and says, "An American, paying in cash! Unheard of!", because Americans have this propensity to use plastic money.

I notice this also on the internet. If you buy something on line and the only payment options you are given is credit card, it's almost always an American website. Non-US websites will usually have an option to pay by bank transfer as well. I've actually called up U.S. merchants and asked to pay able to submit payment by bank transfer and some of them just simply refused to accept cash.

Non-Americans travelling in the U.S.A. who are accustomed to using cash (I was just in the U.S.A. for 10 ten days and took 15 000 USD with me), run into problems from the TSA, because these guys, like the U.S. soldiers in Iraq, are so provincial that the idea of people who do things differently from them is simply inconceivable. They run around with their plastic money believing cash is something only criminals use.

What you are saying is what would be suspicious in one culture may not be suspicious in another.

In America carrying a large amount of cash is suspicious because most "normal" people, as you point out, use either check or plastic.

So if a large amount of cash is suspicious to the average person, why would it not be an indicator to a TSO that something illegal might be happening and a referral to a LEO is prudent.

I think me switching sides has wonked the forum.

Anybody else getting strange forum layouts?

Because that individual may be visiting the U.S.A. from somewhere else and may not be aware of the prejudice against cash in the U.S.A., or even if they are aware, they may not want to adopt the American way of paying, just as Americans overseas often insist on using their credit cards. Having such a preference should not result in their being subjected to heightened harassment at security checkpoints, any more than wearing a full beard or a turban should.

Looking for cash, in any amount, is outside the job description of a TSO. Cash is not a danger to air travel, as such it is none of the TSA’s business.

The layout's okay but you switching sides is really messing with my head (at the end of a very long day!).

Okay, I'll play anyway. TSA screeners, although Federal employees, are not detectives or general purpose crime-stoppers. They have no basis to decide when a sum of money becomes "suspicious." They are charged only with keeping dangerous things off aircraft, and only because aircraft are considered vulnerable in ways that other infrastructure isn't.

Giving government employees permission to involve police based on a vague suspicion (unless directly related to their job of keeping dangerous things off aircraft) becomes absurd if you apply this to any other scenario. Say a TSA screener named Fred lives next door to Barney. Barney comes home in a new sports car one day. Fred might "suspect" that Barney can't afford the car and might therefore be involved in some illegal business. Should Fred call the police in his official position as a gov't employee and report Barney?

I hope you'd say no. And note that in this case, Fred probably knows a lot more about Barney - what kind of job he has, what kind of purchases he usually makes, whether his kids are in college, etc - than Fred would know about a passenger who comes through the checkpoint. If anything, Fred is in a better position to be suspicious of Barney's sports car than of some person's cash. Still, the answer is no.

Carrying cash through an airport and buying a new car are both indications of unusual financial dealings that might - or might not - be linked to something illegal. Neither threatens the safety of an aircraft. Neither should be any of Fred's business.

Let's go further. Fred quits the TSA and gets an gov't office job. He's still a federal employee. Should any employee of the US gov't be able to call the police in their official capacity and report anything they think is unusual? Is that the society you want to live in?

As it turns out, Barney's rich uncle died and left him some money on the condition that he buy a car with it. Why should Barney have to explain that to the police (or provide proof) just because Fred is a busy-body?

What if it's not money? Fred, now a senior gov't consultant, works from home a lot these days. He notices that Barney's wife Betty usually leaves the house at 8:30 and returns at 4. (Fred spends a lot of time looking out the window. And Betty is hot. ) On Thursday, he doesn't see Betty at all. Or again on Friday. Should Fred call the police in his official gov't capacity because he suspects that Barney has killed Betty and buried her in the backyard? (TK - I'm sticking to your ground rules. Fred has only observed someone coming and going; the "obviously illegal" part is only in Fred's mind.)

With a fertile imagination (read, paranoia), almost anything can be suspicious. It's natural to think "I wonder what that's all about?" But TSA screeners using their position to satisfy their curiosity, in the guise of "helping out law enforcement," leads to some very ugly intrusions into people's lives and privacy.

That is a prejudice too: All cash transactions for more than 12,500 euros undergo mandatory registration all over the EU. In some countries (Italy, for instance) they are simply forbidden.

The TSA begs to differ, Assisting Law Enforcement. When you read the stories they show that the TSA is making an effort to raise awareness by their employee about suspicious non safety behaviors or items.

The TSOs DO have a basis to decide when a sum of money becomes suspicious, the amount was in that directive that Blogger Bob was kind enough to grace us with. According to it any monies totaling $10k or above is to be referred to a LEO as contraband.

You need to prove to me that keeping dangerous items off the plane and out of the sterile area is the TSOs ONLY charge.

The ground rules are there mainly to keep other TSA issues out of the thread. Giving analogies is within the rules and welcomed.

Shouldn't we use a ready work force to help with the safety and security of not just the aircraft but also the general population?

Show me where that limitation is placed in stone.

A firefighter's job description does not include giving oxygen to an animal but the papers are filled with stories of that very thing. I do not hear people complain that saving a kitten is outside a firefighter's job description, even though we pay for the firefighters, equipment and consumables.

Would we be so forgiving with a foreigner's ignorance of our ways if they were walking around naked or killing someone's goat?

Or what if they were killing goats naked? Please, that's a silly analogy and you know it. And I think if some Brazilian model travelled to the U.S.A. and dressed the same way she would at Copacobana then, yes, I think her fellow beachgoers would mostly be "forgiving"

The issue of the inherent suspiciousness of "large amounts" of cash goes to the issue of whether or not "unusual" = "suspicious". Some people think they have some sort of natural right to be a busybody, and that anyone doing anything "unusual" is under some sort of obligation to explain themselves. Hence, when these people work as TSOs, they think it's their job to alert to "unusual" amounts of cash, "unusual" ID cards, "unusual" itineraries, etc. etc.

As I've said before, freedom to do only what is "normal" is no freedom at all. The real barometer of society's freedom is exactly that -- how they deal with "unusual" people.

*****

You are going seriously equate a firefigher saving a kitten with a TSO deciding to act a as a surrogate LEO?

There is nothing inherently wrong with a TSO, when confronted with a potential situation that might require the assistance of a trained LEO, from bringing them in. Like when someone is carrying more than 10,000 dollars in cash. I realize that in other cultures, that might be normal, but in the US it isn't, and LEO's should definitely be called in. It is no different than me calling the VA State Police when I see a driver who is acting like he/she is operating a vehicle under the influence.

When you look at the TSA assisting law enforcement page, most of the stories are about TSA finding illegal items that pose a danger to aircraft in the ordinary course of inspecting carry on baggage or a pat down search. Again, I want the TSO to be looking for those items. That is their job. Finding other contraband like drugs - OK, if you are going to be stupid and pack illegal drugs on your person or in your carry on, you deserve to get stopped.

I have a big problem with TSO's acting like wannabe cops is when a passenger is carrying less than 10,000 dollars. That is not inherently illegal, and TSA shouldn't be snooping around this kind of private conduct. Carrying 9,000 cash isn't going to pose a safety threat to the airplane, so what business is it of TSA?

I also take great offense to BDO's walking around looking for "suspicious behavior" that does not relate to aviation safety. If a TSO wants to catch drug smugglers, they should join DEA or ICE. Besides, most BDO's I've observed are pretty poorly trained and supervised.

The government already pokes its nose into our private lives too much. When I go to the airport, I want them to ensure that no one gets on the plane with a weapon or explosive. I don't want yet another government agency taking it upon themselves to monitor my behavior if I'm not carrying a weapon or explosive device.

As soon as TSA demonstrates they can do their "day job" with any kind of real efficiency, then they can talk about branching out. Otherwise, they need to focus their efforts on what they are supposed to be doing.

Well, I guess they could ask the traveler about their travel plans. However, in my case (and others on this forum, I suspect), all they would get out of me is the destination FROM THAT AIRPORT.

IOW, I just flew to Japan recently, through BWI (means a connection somewhere). If the TSO at BWI had asked about the large sum of money I had with me and what my destination was, I would have told him that the money was NONE of TSA's business and my immediate destination is shown on the B/P I showed to get through the C/P. The TSA has NO business knowing what my final destination is, EVER.