quote:The TSA wouldn't comment on the lawsuit, but said in a statement that the movement of large amounts of cash through a checkpoint may be investigated "if suspicious activity is suspected."
quote:The TSA wouldn't comment on the lawsuit, but said in a statement that the movement of large amounts of cash through a checkpoint may be investigated "if suspicious activity is suspected."
I suspect suspicion!
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lisa, did you post this as something wrong worth commenting on, or because it involves Ron Paul?
Posts: 1941 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
So does $4700 really constitute as a suspiciously large sum of money? What behaviors other than carrying the money were suspicious? I usually don't like the ACLU but I'm glad they are stepping in on this one.
Posts: 1132 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!
| IP: Logged |
posted
Why can't we get actual police officers or similar law enforcement agents to act as airport security?
If it's such a vital job that National Security and Public Safety depends on it, then certainly we should have trained professionals doing the job.
We're giving people the power to detain US citizens without cause or legal counsel, but we can't be bothered to give them real training or accountability.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Darth_Mauve: Lisa, did you post this as something wrong worth commenting on, or because it involves Ron Paul?
The former. I happened to know about it because it involves Ron Paul, but I commented on it because it's not only wrong, but creepy.
quote:Originally posted by Dobbie: The suspicious part was that guy's refusal to answer a simple question.
He asked them whether he was legally obligated to answer them. They refused to say. Americans shouldn't have to answer questions because some dude in a uniform asks them with no legal authority.
I once flew from Israel to Chicago with a little over $3K cash in my pocket. The idea that I could have been detained for that by some overzealous punk with a uniform just really squicks me out.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
He did eventually answer them-- even though according to his statements they never told him his rights. The policeman at the end of the article knew where the money came from and asked for an affirmation of that.
If you're walking through the airport with that much cash, OF COURSE it's suspicious, and they were right to pull him aside for questioning.
And of course, the TSA agents should have been able to tell this guy what his rights are, and they should have done so right away, long before threatening him with arrest, etc.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ever since I was pulled aside and treated badly (threats, ignoring me while searching passengers that came later first) by the TSA because I wouldn't take off a cardigan in public because doing so would expose more of what I had underneath than I was comfortable with, I am prone to believe crappy stories like this one. I don't think they are well-trained. The ones I encountered were powermad and happy to be bullies in their tiny little sphere.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: If you're walking through the airport with that much cash, OF COURSE it's suspicious
Really? Why? Am I going to use the money to blow the plane up somehow?
It's NOT TSAs job to deal with suspicious activity. It's their job to deal with suspicious activity that deals with flight safety. How would having a large amount of cash on one's person possibly relate to flight safety?
Posts: 409 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:It's NOT TSAs job to deal with suspicious activity. It's their job to deal with suspicious activity that deals with flight safety.
I don't know about that-- it might very well be one of their tasks to enforce the law within the jurisdiction of the airport.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: He did eventually answer them-- even though according to his statements they never told him his rights. The policeman at the end of the article knew where the money came from and asked for an affirmation of that.
If you're walking through the airport with that much cash, OF COURSE it's suspicious, and they were right to pull him aside for questioning.
And of course, the TSA agents should have been able to tell this guy what his rights are, and they should have done so right away, long before threatening him with arrest, etc.
This is really the crux of the problem, I think -- that they did not explain his rights. They just tried to bully him. Also, I don't think he should have had to answer. It's not like he could blow up a plane with $4700. In fact, the fact that he was carrying that much money would make me more likely to suspect he wants to get to his destination safely. We are allowed to travel in this country without having people in our faces and in our business. Suspicious behavior must actually be something that appears threatening, not simply out of the ordinary. (Although $4700 doesn't seem like that much money in the grand scheme of things.)
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Ever since I was pulled aside and treated badly (threats, ignoring me while searching passengers that came later first) by the TSA because I wouldn't take off a cardigan in public because doing so would expose more of what I had underneath than I was comfortable with, I am prone to believe crappy stories like this one. I don't think they are well-trained. The ones I encountered were powermad and happy to be bullies in their tiny little sphere.
I had a bad run-in with the TSA as well. They gave me privacy, but the insisted on doing a full search of me, including running their hands along my breasts and thighs. It was humiliating and the worst part is the same people did it TWICE. In the Kansas City airport, you have to leave security to use the bathroom. Really annoying (pre-9-11 setup). So I left the very minimally busy terminal, came back five minutes later with nothing on my person but my ID and ticket, wearing the same rather fitted clothes, and I assure you that I hadn't gained any weight in that time period. Yet they insisted on once again checking to see if I really did have large breasts or if there was a bomb under my bra. I was in tears by the time it was over and I did give the TSA a piece of my mind. I understand a lot of women did.
Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think it depends on the role of the TSA. If they aren't law enforcement generally, then it isn't their place to question this. It would be like being stopped by a fireman who wanted to know why you were carrying money.
You can't blow up a plane with money.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have to say, I was not expecting a Land Before Time reference when I opened this thread. But I am coming out strongly in favor.
Posts: 910 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Why? What crime that is under the jurisdiction of the TSA consists of carrying money?
Why do you ask that? Are we to insist the TSA turn a blind eye to any suspected crime that doesn't directly impact airline safety?
There's no question the TSA has acted badly in this and quite a few other cases. Asking questions isn't one of the things they did wrong. Pretty much everything after the first asked question was, though.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Why? What crime that is under the jurisdiction of the TSA consists of carrying money?
Why do you ask that? Are we to insist the TSA turn a blind eye to any suspected crime that doesn't directly impact airline safety?
There's no question the TSA has acted badly in this and quite a few other cases. Asking questions isn't one of the things they did wrong. Pretty much everything after the first asked question was, though.
I want to know what crime has been committed by carrying $4700 that is in ANYONE's jurisdiction. No, nobody should turn a blind eye to a suspected crime, but there is NO CRIME in carrying money. It is a perfectly legal thing to do.
quote:Originally posted by Jamio: Christine! That's horrible! Did they ever apologize?
No. But after enough women complained, they had to discontinue that type of search.
Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: If you're walking through the airport with that much cash, OF COURSE it's suspicious, and they were right to pull him aside for questioning.
How is it "of course suspicious"? The TSA isn't the police. Their purpose is to prevent danger, not to probe people carrying cash. And since when does carrying a few thousand dollars constitute a "suspicious act" in this country?
Sheesh. When they start demanding internal passports, will you have excuses for that as well?
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Christine: I want to know what crime has been committed by carrying $4700 that is in ANYONE's jurisdiction.
Potentially, money laundering. Pretty sure that is not under TSA's jurisdiction, though.
If this had been an international flight, it would be another story. There are legal limits on transporting large sums of US (and other) currency in and out of the country.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: Carrying 4700 dollars isn't against the law.
No, but I'd certainly see it as suspicious and worthy of questioning.
So you've said. Twice, now. And you've failed to give any reason for it. People should be subject to search and seizure for anything someone deems suspicious? We're getting rid of the Fourth Amendment now? The Ninth and Tenth weren't enough?
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:And since when does carrying a few thousand dollars constitute a "suspicious act" in this country?
Since the War on Drugs has associated the carrying of large sums of cash with being a drug dealer or being involved in the drug trade in general in pretty much everyone's mind. Also with the existence of check, card and plentiful banks it's rare for anyone to travel with cash. Everyone just uses other - safer - methods of payment for large transactions. *shrug*
But I agree that it really shouldn't be treated as suspicious.
Posts: 3295 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Christine: I want to know what crime has been committed by carrying $4700 that is in ANYONE's jurisdiction.
Potentially, money laundering. Pretty sure that is not under TSA's jurisdiction, though.
If this had been an international flight, it would be another story. There are legal limits on transporting large sums of US (and other) currency in and out of the country.
Large sums are a lot large than that. Banks make you fill out a form if you want to deposit over $10K in cash. Which is bad enough, really. We're supposed to be innocent until proven guilty in this country. "We want to stop money launderers" isn't sufficient justification to treat everyone as guilty until proven innocent. It's not like money laundering poses a clear and present danger.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I know a guy who knows a guy who almost lost his job and ended up in jail because he balked at filling out the forms for a >$10k cash withdrawal, because he was confused and paranoid about why he was supposed to do so. That'd have been a huge victory for society, to have this guy behind bars.
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:Why? What crime that is under the jurisdiction of the TSA consists of carrying money?
Why do you ask that? Are we to insist the TSA turn a blind eye to any suspected crime that doesn't directly impact airline safety?
There's no question the TSA has acted badly in this and quite a few other cases. Asking questions isn't one of the things they did wrong. Pretty much everything after the first asked question was, though.
Did they ask the first question before or after detaining the guy? If they asked him in the security line why he had $4700, then I would tend to agree that wasn't terribly wrong, although it wasn't necessary or appropriate in my opinion. They're allowed to ask questions out of curiosity, I suppose.
But if they detained him for the purpose of asking that first question, then it most certainly was wrong.
They aren't supposed to turn a blind eye to crimes, anymore than you are or I am. But their power to detain people should be strictly limited. If they think a guy has too much cash on him, let them report it to a real law enforcement agency (and let them enjoy listening to the amused "And what exactly do you want us to do about him having $4700?").
But if they're going to detain and threaten somebody, it damn well better be because they have a transportation safety related concern.
--- (No longer directly addressing Rakeesh:)
I'll admit to already disliking the TSA because it serves mainly to assuage the fears of travelers rather than to actually protect them, but in the process provides all kinds of cover for petty abuse of authority. I don't trust them to screen out potential employees who might really enjoy patting down a traveler, or making them cower, and are happy to make an excuse to get the opportunity.
This is just one example.
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: Carrying 4700 dollars isn't against the law.
No, but I'd certainly see it as suspicious and worthy of questioning.
So you've said. Twice, now. And you've failed to give any reason for it. People should be subject to search and seizure for anything someone deems suspicious? We're getting rid of the Fourth Amendment now? The Ninth and Tenth weren't enough?
Don't get ahead of yourself.
Alcon's reasoning is correct-- the association of lots of cash and the illicit drug business would be my suspicion if I were a TSA agent. I still think it's kosher to pull them aside and ask, if you've got the authority to do so, and if you let them know their rights.
While I don't think it should be illegal to carry all that money around, it's implicit in airport security that you submit to a search. That much money is going to raise questions; if they are law enforcement, they should act.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
From my admittedly cursory look, it looks there are some TSA law enforcement officers, but that is not everyone and that isn't the people who do the screening.
Only the air marshalls are law enforcement. The other people aren't - they are security, but not law enforcement.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dobbie: The suspicious part was that guy's refusal to answer a simple question.
He asked them whether he was legally obligated to answer them. They refused to say. Americans shouldn't have to answer questions because some dude in a uniform asks them with no legal authority.
I once flew from Israel to Chicago with a little over $3K cash in my pocket. The idea that I could have been detained for that by some overzealous punk with a uniform just really squicks me out.
Without commenting on the good/bad aspect of this case, I suspect that is precisely what happened. Its obvious from the transcript that the passenger was making an issue of whether he had to answer and he ran into a TSA guy who was abusing already abusing his authority. It's like a collision of two immovable objects
That said, it is currently advised that Canadians travelling internationally should always avoid US airports for connections if you have to get off the plane. Apparently, they make you through airport security now even if just passing through.
(Of course, I generally avoid US airports in general. I've had four hour+ delays with in both Chicago and Denver in the last two years. Yay.)
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by scifibum: ... I don't trust them to screen out potential employees who might really enjoy patting down a traveler, or making them cower, and are happy to make an excuse to get the opportunity.
This^2
Especially if you're a non-citizen. Who knows if they'll interrogate you or send you to Syria or something.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Here's a list of regulations that govern the TSA. I scanned through the "civil aviation security" section and haven't yet seen anything that grants general law enforcement powers to TSA employees.
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
My understanding is that if you're transporting $10,000 or more, you're supposed to declare it. But carrying $4,500 isn't in any way against the law.
What's more troubling to me is that a regualar police officer would be hard pressed to perform this kind of detention and search without permission or warrant. The TSA is basically given some flexibility here within the purview of flight security. Carrying $4,500 is not significant evidence of a crime, and would in fact seem like a counter-indicator of a desire to cause harm to a flight or its passengers.
The agents overstepped their authority, and they fully deserve to get sued. Frankly, I think it's high time there was some pushback on the TSA.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I never said there was a crime in carrying large amounts of cash undocumented on one's person.
Just that, in certain circumstances - such as boarding an aircraft traveling long distances - it can appear suspicious. If law enforcement folks see something that appears suspicious, they're allowed to ask about it. It's really that simple.
quote:What suspected crime?
I dunno, a host of crimes that would involve carrying large amounts of cash on one's person, many involving drugs.
quote:I want to know what crime has been committed by carrying $4700 that is in ANYONE's jurisdiction. No, nobody should turn a blind eye to a suspected crime, but there is NO CRIME in carrying money. It is a perfectly legal thing to do.
With equal passion, I'd like to know where I indicated otherwise.
quote:So you've said. Twice, now. And you've failed to give any reason for it. People should be subject to search and seizure for anything someone deems suspicious? We're getting rid of the Fourth Amendment now? The Ninth and Tenth weren't enough?
Lisa, Scott quite clearly said questioning.
quote:But I agree that it really shouldn't be treated as suspicious.
Why not? For a given definition of 'treated as suspicious', that is.
quote:Large sums are a lot large than that.
They're not always larger than that, though.
And of course if you don't want to deal with those sorts of regulations, keep your money in your mattress. It's just one of those entailing details that everyone signs up for that you don't actually believe they sign up for.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: I never said there was a crime in carrying large amounts of cash undocumented on one's person.
Just that, in certain circumstances - such as boarding an aircraft traveling long distances - it can appear suspicious. If law enforcement folks see something that appears suspicious, they're allowed to ask about it. It's really that simple.
Well, as freedom of speech is guaranteed in the first amendment then yes, anyone can ask anything....law enforcement, the TSA, and the passenger in the next seat. This does not translate to the right to detain, however. It is also pretty pointless. Question: "Why are you carrying $4,700?" Answer: "Oh, a big drug deal just went down and now I'm off to buy more crack."
Detaining someone requires more than suspicion. It requires probable cause.
Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Detaining someone requires more than suspicion. It requires probable cause.
I don't think this is true of airport security.
quote:The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
posted
It is explicit noted in the security lines that your possessions and person may be searched. That is the cost of doing business with the federally regulated but privately held airlines.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: It is explicit noted in the security lines that your possessions and person may be searched. That is the cost of doing business with the federally regulated but privately held airlines.
Searching does not equal detaining.
They can search me and my property because I am giving consent to it by trying to go through security. They can ask me questions. But they can't detain me bases on "suspicion" alone without violating my constitutional right... they *must* have probable cause.
Posts: 409 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think Scott was responding to the quoted constitutional text, not specifically addressing the detainment issue, which is different.
I haven't seen a justification for detaining a person for questioning when the concern has nothing to do with the purview of the TSA's authority. "They are law enforcement" does not seem to be accurate, and so doesn't provide justification.
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Can you clarify what is meant by "detaining?" Can you question someone without detaining them?
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Standing in their way. Refusing to give them their legal possessions after the agreed-to search is complete. Taking their arm and saying "come with me." Saying "You have to come with us now". Asserting that a person will not be allowed to continue his journey without answering questions.
Those are the things I'd call "detaining."
Simply asking a person a question while going through standard search procedures is different. I would call asking questions "questioning." I probably would assume detention occurred in most cases where someone was said to be 'questioned' by authorities, though. (It seems authorities tend to like to ask questions in a context where their authority has already been asserted.)
Refusing to answer questions about legal rights muddies the question of whether someone is voluntarily participating in questioning or is being detained against their will, in my opinion.
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
That's horrible! Did they ever apologize?
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
