TSA detention for carring cash

Dart said:
Law enforcement has always had a right to detain and question, without arrest, 'suspicious' persons. I was once stopped, questioned and photographed at 9pm in Melbourne Beach, ten miles south of my house, while walking back to my friends house from the store three blocks away. My crime...:dunno: I suppose being in your twenties and wearing a knit watch cap was 'suspicious' in 1984.
Click to expand...
Actually, they haven't always had that "right". A few cases back in the 60s established case law that gave them the ability to "stop and frisk" based upon reasonable and articulate suspicion. They can't just come up to you and search you without being able to explain their reasoning as to why they thought you were acting suspiciously.

Of course, the TSA screeners aren't sworn officers and don't have any of these abilities.

-Felix
 
I suggest that the TSA change their uniforms, they really should be wearing Brown Shirts. .... bunch of moronic idiots......

He was an impressively courageous young man! He never lost his cool and insisted on maintaining his rights. In the end he made his flight too!
 
I sort of wish I would get into one of these situations at some point. If they make me miss my flight and maybe some significant business opportunities and if they refer to my asserting my rights as "playing a f****ng game", it would make for a nice and expensive lawsuit for them. I suspect that almost no judge or jury would feel sympathetic toward these people....
 
I saw a bumper sticker today that I desperately wanted myself, as a pilot:

"Fight Terrorism: Abolish the TSA"
 
sba55 said:
I sort of wish I would get into one of these situations at some point. If they make me miss my flight and maybe some significant business opportunities and if they refer to my asserting my rights as "playing a f****ng game", it would make for a nice and expensive lawsuit for them. I suspect that almost no judge or jury would feel sympathetic toward these people....
Click to expand...
P'shaw. Consider what district you're in.

Hey now, what's that sound...?
 
I am surprised the guy got away with recording!!!

In the ferry biz we have to carry cash on a 172 I carry 8,000+ FRN's as most places we stop for fuel only will accept cash.. I have been questioned and gave them a short answer "It's money for my fuel, hotels, etc on a ferry flight I am taking" What's a Ferry Flight the TSA asks? I tell them taking small aircraft such as 172's etc. over the ocean... Mr. TSA know it all said he's a private pilot and fly's a 172 and they cannot make it over the ocean. I tried to explain how it's done he called me a liar and said they will find out what Ii am really doing. TSA called customs and detained me for about 8 hours... After an FBI visit and explaining to them how you can take a small plane over the ocean and showing flight plans, special airworthiness cert's, receipts etc. they photo copied everything let me go missing my connecting flight and I had to wait standby all the next day for a flight.

Another time, I was arrested by the TSA upon landing in Orlando on an international flight from London I Asked for an attorney they told me I am not in the USA and have no rights... I was detained in a little room "Jail Cell" for having my EPIRB a Suspicious Device? I guess some passenger did not like the looks of it. They said it scared the passenger when I pulled it out of my bag to get to my MP3 Player... When requested by the flight attendant to hand it over I tried to explain to her what it was and that if it is miss handled or turned on what it will do! she got mouthy and said I will now be charged with interfering with a flight crew and having a device that can interrupt flight operations upon landing. Since I did not immediately hand it over She cut me off of all services including meals and said not sure how I even got this device past airport security In London.. "Virgin Atlantic" she said it would be held by the pilot until landing and that it would most likely be destroyed by the us athorites. I explained it's not dnagerous. Upon landing I was arrested and detained for about 10 hours nearly nude in a little room at the Orlando airport with a filthy toilet and no food until the FBI could come and inspect the device and ask me a few questions. "still refused an attorney" They dropped the charges "B.S. Charges to Hold Me" and asked me a bunch of questions about a few stamps in my passport mostly my Lebanon trip and the type of work I do. The FBI gave me my clothes and EPIRB back and let me go and then another round of the same questions by customs.

I have had more then a few runin's with the US Gestapo... they abuse their power for sure. I have been Detained, Assaulted, Threatened with cavity searches, denied food, water, clothing, etc.

I guess when you deal with rich middle eastern clients it raises a bunch of questions..
 
alaskaflyer said:
jmaynard said:
Since when does the TSA have the legal right to question someone about his lawful activities?
Click to expand...
Since when does one require a "legal right" in this country to ask questions?
Click to expand...
They can ask all they want, but the government is not supposed to do anything if you refuse to answer a question they have no right to ask.
 
Zander said:
He was an impressively courageous young man! He never lost his cool and insisted on maintaining his rights. In the end he made his flight too!
Click to expand...

Absolutely! Lesson is: KNOW YOUR RIGHTS. That is a frightening tape; I'm not sure I would have been as composed as this young man. Well done.
 
Clark1961 said:
That's simple. Because paying cash for fuel isn't reasonable cause to think that a crime is being committed.
Click to expand...

The cause is the TSA agent can't imagine anybody having more cash in their hands than they gross in 2 paychecks.

As with the IRS, it's so incomprehensible you might as well be from Mars.
 
jmaynard said:
They can ask all they want, but the government is not supposed to do anything if you refuse to answer a question they have no right to ask.
Click to expand...
And the only question you have to answer (only in some states/jurisdictions) has to do with establishing your identity. Generally, I'd only provide my name, and nothing else.

This guy did a very good job. I've been in a situation where a "i'd rather be a cop" customs guy thought he could get away with telling me his own incorrect interpretation of state department interpretations. Unfortunately, he didn't expect that I had read the newest cable about that exact topic. "I'm not trying to educate you, but what you're saying is incorrect and goes directly against department policy. Would you like me to ask them to contact you to clarify"? They're only bullies because people let them get away with it.

-Felix
 
sba55 said:
...They're only bullies because people let them get away with it...
Click to expand...

How about an airport security guard that blatantly confiscated and began wheeling away a guy's luggage because somehow in his demented brain a person in a wheelchair is baggage and not SOME BODY who was accompanying his own luggage?
I was waiting patiently in the airport, quietly watching people go by. My luggage was stacked up next to me and I felt that I looked like quite the world traveler. Suddenly this illusion was shattered when a security type guy came with a luggage cart and began loading my luggage. I sputtered a protest, 'Hey, that's my luggage.'

He looked at me, annoyed and said, "Luggage can't be left unattended."

"I AM attending it," I said incredulous.

"You don't understand, SOME BODY needs to be in possession of the luggage," he said and I didn't get his implication, not yet, I was still too startled.

"I am in possession of this luggage, it is MINE," my voice is rising.

He looks at me with exaggerated patience, "SOME BODY (long pause) needs to be attending the luggage."

...

http://davehingsburger.blogspot.com/2009/03/elephant-disappears.html
Click to expand...

The good news in this story is a pilot heard the commotion and set the maroon right - risking his own well being.
 
Last edited:
jmaynard said:
They can ask all they want, but the government is not supposed to do anything if you refuse to answer a question they have no right to ask.
Click to expand...

You are half right.

I didn't read anything in the Bill of Rights about a right to be free from unreasonable questions.
 
alaskaflyer said:
Sure 'nuff. But they still wouldn't have required a warrant.
Click to expand...

What are you proposing as probable cause? Be careful now, make sure it ties to Mari's post and remember that you don't get to make things up.
 
alaskaflyer said:
Er...you are the lawyer but why would they need a warrant?
Click to expand...

Typed quickly (I actually thought about that after posting it). They would need evidence rising to the same level required of a warrant.

In other words, it'd be something more than just "they used cash to buy gas."

Sorry for the lack of specificity.

As a general rule, if something is capable of quick disposal (think car leaving scene, flushing drugs down the toilet, etc.), a warrant isn't required if probable cause (same standard for warrant) exists.
 
Last edited:
alaskaflyer said:
Since when does one require a "legal right" in this country to ask questions?
Click to expand...

Absolutely correct. If I'm a cop, I can ask you anything I want. You don't have to answer, but I can ask.
 
Clark1961 said:
That's simple. Because paying cash for fuel isn't reasonable cause to think that a crime is being committed.
Click to expand...

Just to get the terms correct (in case you ever need them), it's "reasonable suspicion" and "probable cause." R.S. is the lesser standard, used for stops short of formal arrest, like a traffic stop. P.C. is for actual arrests, searches, etc.

Our officers here can explain the differences in practical terms better than I can, but suffice it to say that it just depends on the circumstances, but both require more than mere suspicions/hunches - a police officer actually has to have actual facts indicating suspicion.
 
sba55 said:
And the only question you have to answer (only in some states/jurisdictions) has to do with establishing your identity. Generally, I'd only provide my name, and nothing else.

....
Click to expand...

Anyone who's interested should check out a case from the USSC named Hiibel (that spelling might not be quite correct). I think it's a 2003 case.
 
jmaynard said:
They can ask all they want, but the government is not supposed to do anything if you refuse to answer a question they have no right to ask.
Click to expand...

Not quite - while you have a right not to answer, they have every right to ask whatever they want.
 
Let's not forget, they moved this suspect to a small, windowless room. Three armed men questioned him and went into areas in which they had no business. Then, they detained him against his wishes. This is very intimidating and one sided. The Miranda warning arose out of police using abusive tactics to get an admission of guilt. To me, when they detained him, they crossed the line. When they brought him to the small, windowless room the intimidation began.

All the TSA agent had to do to defuse this was say, sir, I'm not sure what your rights are, but you probably won't make your plane if you don't explain this. The threats to call the DEA and FBI were absurd.

Best,

Dave
 
Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe said:
He wasn't detained for having cash - he was detained for having a 'tude.

Think about it.
Click to expand...

No, he was detained for having the cash. If he had not had the cash, he would not have been detained nor would he have been taken to a separate room. The cash was the cause of the detention.

I've seen TSA screeners literally empty peoples wallets, read each piece of paper in the wallet, and start asking questions about phone numbers, etc. while making notes (Spring 2006, at DCA). Obstensibly, the TSA claims to reserve the right to search wallets, claiming that they are looking for contraband (razor blades).

I know of a company that sometimes has employees courier classified material. The TSA is prohibited from seeing the material under USGovt laws. There is a specific policy for how travel is to be handled, and what happens if the TSA still demands to open and read the material. Secretly, I hope that the TSA tries to have a courier arrested for refusing to allow inspection of classified material (and for attempting to leave a checkpoint before inspection is complete, if the TSA refuses to allow the person to board without said inspection).

jmaynard said:
TSA is not law enforcement, as they will repeatedly tell you.
Click to expand...

Depends on who you talk to. Some of the checkpoint folks will tell you they are, while flashing their spiffy new badges. The people at the top will tell you that they aren't law enforcement, but really can't control the folks in the field.
 
wsuffa said:
...I know of a company that sometimes has employees courier classified material. The TSA is prohibited from seeing the material under USGovt laws. There is a specific policy for how travel is to be handled, and what happens if the TSA still demands to open and read the material. Secretly, I hope that the TSA tries to have a courier arrested for refusing to allow inspection of classified material (and for attempting to leave a checkpoint before inspection is complete, if the TSA refuses to allow the person to board without said inspection).
...
Click to expand...

I'd bet it happens all the time and they educate one TSA gate crew at a time that they didn't become royalty in a week of training with a ridiculous delay and much huffing each time.
 
I've had to carry classified material through airport security several times before the TSA existed. I wouldn't even let it go through the x-ray machine. There was only one time where security wouldn't accept my credentials and I had to have an employee of the airline escort me through security. The airline had to sign a piece of paper accepting responsibility for my carrying something that wasn't inspected by the private security company. From what I've seen of the TSA, I'm glad I no longer have to transport classified as they just don't get it.
 
Clark1961 said:
What are you proposing as probable cause? Be careful now, make sure it ties to Mari's post and remember that you don't get to make things up.
Click to expand...

I don't believe they had probable cause at all, absent other information. My point is they didn't need a warrant, they just needed probable cause. This is talking about Mari's post not the one that started this thread.
 
alaskaflyer said:
I don't believe they had probable cause at all, absent other information. My point is they didn't need a warrant, they just needed probable cause. This is talking about Mari's post not the one that started this thread.
Click to expand...

That's absolutely correct - for those who don't know, a warrant isn't required when probable cause for a search exists, and whatever is subject to the search is "transient" in nature. If anyone's got any interest in the subject, just google "4th amendment automobile exception," and I'm sure something will pop up.

As an example, suppose you're driving down the road, and are stopped for speeding. When he comes up to your car, the officer sees a submachine gun on your back seat, along with a bag of coke. Being as you can just drive off if he goes to get a warrant, he's not required to get a warrant -- he can search both you and your car on the spot, because seeing those things means there's p.c. to believe a crime has been committed.

So, to the extent my former post said a warrant was required, that's what I get for posting in a hurry and not feeling like typing the foregoing - BUT, the standard is the same. It's just that with a warrantless search, a judge determines P.C. after the fact, instead of beforehand.
 
Obi Heed Kenobi said:
That's absolutely correct - for those who don't know, a warrant isn't required when probable cause for a search exists, and whatever is subject to the search is "transient" in nature.
Click to expand...

So, referring back to Mari's post, are you saying that somebody paying CASH for a purchase in and of itself constitutes "probably cause"?

I'd maintain the fact that since I had demonstrated that my use of the cash, in Mari's instance, was to pay for FUEL, not DRUGS, then there was no probable cause.

If I show up at Home Depot with $6000 cash to buy the nicest whirlpool or John Deere riding mower there, do you have probable cause to call the police to find out why I am carrying that much cash?

I don't think so!

Now, if you find me knocking on a crack dealer's door carrying $4K, I think you have probable cause. Not the other way around...
 
TangoWhiskey said:
So, referring back to Mari's post, are you saying that somebody paying CASH for a purchase in and of itself constitutes "probably cause"?
Click to expand...

Neither I nor David are saying that at all.

As in much of life sometimes the question is important as the answer. People are complaining how TSA is illegally detaining people when they aren't detaining anyone at all. People are complaining how TSA is arresting people when they don't arrest anyone (except the Air Marshals of course.) Folks complain how law enforcement "didn't have a warrant" when in fact and in law they didn't need a warrant in some cases.

There are serious problems with TSA policy - this story from post #1 is just another example of how FU the agency is. But most folks don't bother to spend the five minutes it takes to dig down and learn anything about the policies they are complaining about.

The TSA has every "right" under the law to ask you about anything at all. Whether it should be their policy to do so is questionable, and since they are a civil agency investigating civil violations you do not have the same relationship with your interrogator as you would with a police officer. The TSA says that they don't have to let you through the checkpoint if you can't satisfy their questions. Well, that is a policy matter that we should be concerned about especially when subjective discretion is involved.
 
Last edited:
alaskaflyer said:
Neither I nor David are saying that at all.

As in much of life sometimes the question is important as the answer. People are complaining how TSA is illegally detaining people when they aren't detaining anyone at all. People are complaining how TSA is arresting people when they don't arrest anyone (except the Air Marshals of course.) Folks complain how law enforcement "didn't have a warrant" when in fact and in law they didn't need a warrant.

There are serious problems with TSA policy - this story from post #1 is just another example of how FU the agency is. But most folks don't bother to spend the five minutes it takes to dig down and learn anything about the policies they are complaining about.
Click to expand...

I don't understand, Richard. If I pay cash for airplane fuel, and a police officer asks me why I'm carrying so much cash, and I tell him "to pay for airplane fuel", and he doesn't like that answer, can he detain me? Take me downtown for more questioning? Keep me from leaving until the FBI or the DEA shows up to do a further search? From Mari's post, it sounds like that's what happened.

And the initial poster's story was similar. The guy had cash on him. A relatively small amount, in the big scheme of things. He WAS detained, and threatened with being taken to the police if he didn't give them the answers they wanted to hear.

I am trying to understand the policies we're complaining about... explain!
 
TangoWhiskey said:
I don't understand, Richard. If I pay cash for airplane fuel, and a police officer asks me why I'm carrying so much cash, and I tell him "to pay for airplane fuel", and he doesn't like that answer, can he detain me? Take me downtown for more questioning? Keep me from leaving until the FBI or the DEA shows up to do a further search? From Mari's post, it sounds like that's what happened.

And the initial poster's story was similar. The guy had cash on him. A relatively small amount, in the big scheme of things. He WAS detained, and threatened with being taken to the police if he didn't give them the answers they wanted to hear.

I am trying to understand the policies we're complaining about... explain!
Click to expand...

If A police officer or LE official has reasonable suspicion (less than probable cause) that you are involved in criminal activity they can detain you for further questioning. For how long? No one including the Supreme Court can answer that question. Whatever is reasonable under the circumstances.

If a police officer or law enforcement official has probable cause (a higher standard than reasonable suspicion) to believe that a vehicle contains evidence of a crime, contraband etc etc they can search it just as though they have a warrant.

In the OP, the person was detained by an airport police officer standing at the checkpoint, NOT the TSA. There are two things to complain about: the TSA policy of referring such things to the airport police, and the airport police officer who in my opinion stretched his discretion in holding the guy longer than he needed to.
 
alaskaflyer said:
If A police officer or LE official has reasonable suspicion (less than probable cause) that you are involved in criminal activity they can detain you for further questioning. For how long? No one including the Supreme Court can answer that question. Whatever is reasonable under the circumstances.

If a police officer or law enforcement official has probable cause (a higher standard than reasonable suspicion) to believe that a vehicle contains evidence of a crime, contraband etc etc they can search it just as though they have a warrant.
Click to expand...

Agreed, and I appreciate the clarification that these terms have been given in this thread.

Question, as related to an instance like Mari's story: if a police officer comes up to me and starts asking questions about my "cash pay for fuel", as to why I'm carrying so much cash, etc., is the officer under any obligation to tell me what his "reasonable suspicion" is? Is "reasonable suspicion" totally in the discretion of the officer (he doesn't like the way I looked away when he walked past, or the style of clothing I am wearing makes me look like a xyz, or <you fill in the blank>)? Are there any guidelines for law enforcement about this kind of stuff?

alaskaflyer said:
In the OP, the person was detained by an airport police officer standing at the checkpoint, NOT the TSA. There are two things to complain about: the TSA policy of referring such things to the airport police, and the airport police officer who in my opinion stretched his discretion in holding the guy longer than he needed to.
Click to expand...

Agreed here, as well. I think the "problem" is officers that go beyond the boundaries of what a normal person would think is suspicious, and start looking for trouble where there isn't any.

In those cases, it is natural for the person being interrogated to get their dander up a bit, and then that just feeds the aggressive nature and suspicion-meter of the questioning officer, and the cycle feeds on itself.

Reminds me of the video somebody posted about how to handle yourself when an officer pulls you over. Be respectful, answer the da@% questions respectfully but briefly (don't volunteer more than asked), and then be on your way and make your flight. Sadly, it seems for some officers even THAT isn't being "cooperative", as you're not telling them the money is for a drug purchase, like they "reasonably suppose" it must be.
 
alaskaflyer said:
In the OP, the person was detained by an airport police officer standing at the checkpoint, NOT the TSA. There are two things to complain about: the TSA policy of referring such things to the airport police, and the airport police officer who in my opinion stretched his discretion in holding the guy longer than he needed to.
Click to expand...

I guess I missed that. Where was it stated that an airport police officer approved the detention? I thought TSOs were detaining him. They threatened to bring him to the police until the plain clothes fella showed up, or did I miss something?

Best,

Dave
 
Dave Siciliano said:
I guess I missed that. Where was it stated that an airport police officer approved the detention? I thought TSOs were detaining him. They threatened to bring him to the police until the plain clothes fella showed up, or did I miss something?

Best,

Dave
Click to expand...
As best I know, TSOs can't detain people. Which is why they have police standing around there...TSOs are civilians like you and me. They don't have arrest powers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top