|
Originally Posted by N965VJ
(Post 12304383)
Why? I’ve travelled with large amounts of cash in relation to fundraising activities with 501(c)3 organizations, other FTers have mentioned taking a bankroll to LAS.
|
Originally Posted by We Will Never Forget
(Post 12304270)
The memo I saw was worded completely different. This memo only dealt with the LEO's making a referral to CBP if their final destination was outside of the U.S.
From a law enforcement perspective, anyone carrying that much in cash would definitely be worth looking into. However, we are talking about an administrative search for WEI. Can the referrals be justified under an administrative search without additional suspicion? That's what the courts will decide. Personally, I don't see how it does, but I'm not arguing the case and I didn't create the policy. TSA has no charter to develop suspicion on items that are not WEI. Doing so exceeds the limited Administrative Search. I don't know what memo you are referring to but the OD that has been posted here was provided by Blogdad Bob over at PV. I don't see anything that would question its legitimacy. |
Originally Posted by Boggie Dog
(Post 12304428)
Bolding above mine.
TSA has no charter to develop suspicion on items that are not WEI. Doing so exceeds the limited Administrative Search. I don't know what memo you are referring to but the OD that has been posted here was provided by Blogdad Bob over at PV. I don't see anything that would question its legitimacy. |
Originally Posted by We Will Never Forget
(Post 12304411)
There are plenty of reasons certain people pay cash for things. Not all of them are bad, but if you are looking for organized criminal activity, it can be a clue.
So has TSA instructed it's employees to look for organized criminal activity? |
Originally Posted by Boggie Dog
(Post 12304547)
So has TSA instructed it's employees to look for organized criminal activity?
But I get your point. |
Originally Posted by Boggie Dog
(Post 12304547)
So has TSA instructed it's employees to look for organized criminal activity?
(¡ǝǝddıʎ 'ǝʇısqǝʍ ɐsʇ ǝɥʇ uo pǝʇsod ǝɹnʇɔıd ʎɯ ʇǝb ʇɥbıɯ ı puɐ) .oǝ1 ɐ oʇ pǝɹɹǝɟǝɹ ǝq 11ıʍ ʎʇıʌıʇɔɐ 1ɐuıɯıɹɔ ɟo uoıʇɐɔıpuı ʎuɐ |
Originally Posted by We Will Never Forget
(Post 12300907)
If he broke no laws, then why wouldn't he answer the questions? How many travelers would have acted in the same manner? I'm going to guess relatively few, as these cases aren't popping up all over.
To put it bluntly - SCREW THAT. Knowing that you're within your legal rights - and that your interrogators are outside their legitimate authority - is MORE than sufficient reason to refuse to answer them. |
Originally Posted by We Will Never Forget
(Post 12300907)
If he broke no laws, then why wouldn't he answer the questions?
I am continually surprised at the number of people I encounter who are so willing to give up the rights guaranteed by the Constitution.
Originally Posted by We Will Never Forget
(Post 12304244)
Sovereignty still remains with Cuba, according to the lease. The reason they brought the detainees there was because of this status.
|
Originally Posted by We Will Never Forget
(Post 12304626)
No, it would be the police doing the investigation.
But I get your point. Have TSA employees been instructed to look for and report what may be organized criminal activity? I am not asking who would do an investigation. |
Originally Posted by halls120
(Post 12305154)
Because as an American citizen, he is protected by the Fifth Amendment, and has no reason to answer. And I say this in my capacity as a federal prosecutor.
I am continually surprised at the number of people I encounter who are so willing to give up the rights guaranteed by the Constitution.
Originally Posted by halls120
(Post 12305154)
Wrong. Cuba's alleged sovereignty has nothing to with it. The Immigration and Naturalization Act doesn't apply extraterritorially, which is why Gitmo is so valuable.
|
Originally Posted by Boggie Dog
(Post 12305556)
I don't think you do get my point. The Aswer you gave had was not asked.
Have TSA employees been instructed to look for and report what may be organized criminal activity? I am not asking who would do an investigation. |
Originally Posted by erictank
(Post 12305133)
"If you've done nothing wrong, you've got nothing to hide, right?" :mad::mad::td::td:
To put it bluntly - SCREW THAT. Knowing that you're within your legal rights - and that your interrogators are outside their legitimate authority - is MORE than sufficient reason to refuse to answer them. To be clear, we do not know that the "interrogators" were outside the scope of their legitimate authority. We can make assumptions, but it all boils down to the courts. If the SCOTUS says the sky is brown, that's the standard we have to live by. :( |
Originally Posted by We Will Never Forget
(Post 12303359)
I think he could have been compliant, captured the recording and this would have been a pretty clean case for the ACLU. Again, his actions have given the TSA avenues of defense. In life, sometimes you have to appear to lose to ultimately win the game.
|
Originally Posted by IrishDoesntFlyNow
(Post 12306598)
What avenue of defense?
|
Originally Posted by We Will Never Forget
(Post 12306492)
That's a contradictory statement. For example, Jus Solis does not apply in Guantanamo because of Cuban sovereignty.
U.S.N.Y.,1993. Although the protection afforded by § 243(h) did not apply in exclusion proceedings before 1980, other provisions of the Act did authorize relief for aliens at the border seeking protection as refugees in the United States. See INS v. Stevic, 467 U.S., at 415-416, 104 S.Ct., at 2493-2495. When the United States acceded to the Protocol in 1968, therefore, the INA already offered some protection to both classes of refugees. It offered no such protection to any alien who was beyond the territorial waters of the United States, though, and we would not expect the Government to assume a burden as to those aliens without some acknowledgment of its dramatically broadened scope. Both Congress and the Executive Branch gave extensive consideration to the Protocol before ratifying it in 1968; in all of their published consideration of it there appears no mention of the possibility that the United States was assuming any extraterritorial obligations. |
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 6:09 am. |
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.