TSA detention for carring cash

[Obi Heed Kenobi]

To bad you don't believe in freedom, them been the rules for a lot longer and MANY people died to make them the rules. Guess those peoples deaths mean nothing to you nor are you willing to give the same sacrifice. It's sad. People like you are the reason for the downfall of the Greatest Nation to exist.

Missa

You should consider reading the Constitution; in particular, check out the 4th Amendment. You can find it here: http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.overview.html.

This nation isn't, nor has it ever been, "free." Accept it, and get over it.

 

[Trapper John]

How about some tinfoil to go with your hyperbole?


Trapper John

 

[Obi Heed Kenobi]

How about some tinfoil to go with your hyperbole?


Trapper John

I've got the Constitution, and every single Court decision since 1789, on my side. The Constitution is, and always has been, a compromise between freedom and government regulation thereof. That's why I say we live in a system of "ordered liberty" rather than "anarchic bliss."

It is what it is.

 

[Trapper John]

I've got the Constitution, and every single Court decision since 1789, on my side. The Constitution is, and always has been, a compromise between freedom and government regulation thereof. That's why I say we live in a system of "ordered liberty" rather than "anarchic bliss."

It is what it is.

My reply wasn't directed at you...I probably should have quoted the poster, but I didn't really want to regurgitate the garbage...

I agree with you, btw.


Trapper John

 

[jmaynard]

You should consider reading the Constitution; in particular, check out the 4th Amendment. You can find it here: http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.overview.html.

Okkay, here it is:

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.

The uniformly upheld standard for "unreasonable search" is one not based on probable cause, with limited exceptions based on reasonable suspicion that the subject of the search has committed, or is about to commit, a crime. Presenting oneself at a checkpoint to board a commercial airliner does not rise to the level of reasonable suspicion, much less probable cause.

This nation isn't, nor has it ever been, "free." Accept it, and get over it.

This is not a feature. This is a bug. It is especially a bug in that we're moving farther away from being free.

 

[Missa]

This is not a feature. This is a bug. It is especially a bug in that we're moving farther away from being free.

Thank you, I agree. And if "we the people" allow it to continue moving farther away we deserve the crumbling of the nation that is going on and that some people on the board are advocating.

 

[Obi Heed Kenobi]

...

The uniformly upheld standard for "unreasonable search" is one not based on probable cause, with limited exceptions based on reasonable suspicion that the subject of the search has committed, or is about to commit, a crime. Presenting oneself at a checkpoint to board a commercial airliner does not rise to the level of reasonable suspicion, much less probable cause.


....

That is wholly incorrect. Period. To the point that it's not even worth discussing if that's what you think the 4th Amendment means.

 

[jmaynard]

That is wholly incorrect. Period. To the point that it's not even worth discussing if that's what you think the 4th Amendment means.

Well, I guess I've been firmly put in my place.

 

[Obi Heed Kenobi]

Well, I guess I've been firmly put in my place.

I'd recommend you pay attention to what the actual words of the 4th Amendment say. If you don't like them, see if you can get them amended.

 

[jmaynard]

I'd recommend you pay attention to what the actual words of the 4th Amendment say. If you don't like them, see if you can get them amended.

I quoted them. What I said was based on them, and upon what I understand the Supreme Court has said about them. I'm not a lawyer, so I could well be wrong. Instead of just slamming me, why not explain where I got it wrong? Even if you think I'm beyond convincing, you'd be helping others to not make the same mistake I have.

But no, you just had to score points.

 

[Obi Heed Kenobi]

I quoted them. What I said was based on them, and upon what I understand the Supreme Court has said about them. I'm not a lawyer, so I could be wrong. Instead of just slamming me, why not explain where I got it wrong? Even if you think I'm beyond convincing, you'd be helping others to not make the same mistake I have.

But not, you just had to score points.

Fair enough.

Theoretically explained, the 4th Amendment is a balance between the individual's interest in liberty and society's interest in order. There are times when the individual has to win, and there are times when society has to win. The 4th Amendment is probably the single most important provision of the Constitution.

The 4th Amendment, by its own words, does nothing but protect you against "unreasonable" searches and seizures (seizure = detention/arrest). What that means is that, if it's reasonable (and that's a determination made under the circumstances), the gov't can do whatever it wants to you.

So, there are really two parts to a 4th Amendment question. First, is what the gov't did reasonable under the circumstances - if so, the analysis ends there. Second, if what the gov't did was unreasonable, did either reasonable suspicion (to justify a brief investigatory detention) or probable cause (to justify a full-blown search or arrest) exist?

Let's apply that to the airport security setting. Is it unreasonable for there to be security procedures which, as a general rule, aren't particularly intrusive and involve a minimum of time and inconvenience on our parts? While we can quibble about the details and effectiveness of what exists, I don't think too many people are going to tell you that the concept of airport security is unreasonable.

What about a detention/arrest for carrying cash (assuming nothing else)? Without more, I'd say that's unreasonable on its face. So, does the possession of a large amount of cash create R.S. or P.C.? In my mind, by itself, no - but what if it's coupled with something like a one-way ticket to San Diego, and the passenger ain't from San Diego? Again, in my mind, that's a little more suspicious, but still doesn't meet R.S. What if that's coupled with something like a rental car agreement for a return drive from San Diego? Still more suspicious, but it may or may not reach the threshold.

And that's how the analysis works.

But, the bottom line is that the 4th Amendment doesn't protect you against a search or seizure until it becomes "unreasonable."

 

[SkyHog]

But, the bottom line is that the 4th Amendment doesn't protect you against a search or seizure until it becomes "unreasonable."

The unreasonable part is where Jay was right, and your indignant response was pretty much agreeing.

The Supreme Court has held that an unwarranted search is unreasonable, and therefore, there must be some sort of cause for the search.

This is the first time I've seen ya do this Dave, not cool man.

 

[Obi Heed Kenobi]

The unreasonable part is where Jay was right, and your indignant response was pretty much agreeing.

The Supreme Court has held that an unwarranted search is unreasonable, and therefore, there must be some sort of cause for the search.

This is the first time I've seen ya do this Dave, not cool man.

First, I'm sick of the crap that people insist the Constitution says or requires.

Second, your assertion is incorrect, but if you insist on believing it, suit yourself. The law is that, as a general rule, a search absent probable cause (as opposed to warrant) is unreasonable. If a gov't intrusion (either a search or a seizure) is reasonable under the circumstances, the 4th Amendment never applies.

Care to make an argument that the limited intrusion presented at an airport security checkpoint is unreasonable, given the fact that airplanes are demonstrated targets?

 

[jmaynard]

Thanks for the clear explanation. I do appreciate it.

Care to make an argument that the limited intrusion presented at an airport security checkpoint is unreasonable, given the fact that airplanes are demonstrated targets?

I would argue that the intrusion at the checkpoint as practiced by the TSA - where an individual screener can pull someone aside, place their hands all over a person's body, at some airports subject them to a virtual undressing by millimeter wave X-ray, spread their most intimate belongings out on a table for all to see, confiscate or destroy their property, and detain them until law enforcement arrives to interrogate the person for violation of nonexistent laws, based on the merest arbitrary, capricious whim with no accountability whatsoever, is not "limited intrusion". When it's carried out by agents of the federal government, it rises to the level of a violation of the Fourth Amendment, since it's unreasonable and not supported by probable cause.

 

[Obi Heed Kenobi]

Thanks for the clear explanation. I do appreciate it.


I would argue that the intrusion at the checkpoint as practiced by the TSA - where an individual screener can pull someone aside, place their hands all over a person's body, at some airports subject them to a virtual undressing by millimeter wave X-ray, spread their most intimate belongings out on a table for all to see, confiscate or destroy their property, and detain them until law enforcement arrives to interrogate the person for violation of nonexistent laws, based on the merest arbitrary, capricious whim with no accountability whatsoever, is not "limited intrusion". When it's carried out by agents of the federal government, it rises to the level of a violation of the Fourth Amendment, since it's unreasonable and not supported by probable cause.

On that, I absolutely agree with you.

But, in general, do you think that airport security checkpoints are unreasonable (and, keep in mind that this discussion leaves aside the issue of whether, by voluntarily going to an airport, you waive any 4th Amdmt rights)?

I don't think the concept is. What it comes down to is that I don't think it's unreasonable to require people to pass through a metal detector or one of those sniffer machines to get on a plane. Now, a more intrusive search beyond that, I agree that there needs to be cause to do it (i.e., do you set the alarms on the detector off?).

How to remedy that? I don't know.

 

[SkyHog]

First, I'm sick of the crap that people insist the Constitution says or requires.

Second, your assertion is incorrect, but if you insist on believing it, suit yourself. The law is that, as a general rule, a search absent probable cause (as opposed to warrant) is unreasonable. If a gov't intrusion (either a search or a seizure) is reasonable under the circumstances, the 4th Amendment never applies.

Care to make an argument that the limited intrusion presented at an airport security checkpoint is unreasonable, given the fact that airplanes are demonstrated targets?

No one said anything about a warrant.

My argument: Airplanes are not demonstrated targets any more than cars are. You saying its "reasonable" to search any vehicle at will because a car has been used as a terrorist weapon before?

 

[Obi Heed Kenobi]

No one said anything about a warrant.

My argument: Airplanes are not demonstrated targets any more than cars are. You saying its "reasonable" to search any vehicle at will because a car has been used as a terrorist weapon before?

First, you used the term "unwarranted." If you meant "without cause" rather than "without a search warrant," you've got to be specific in that distinction.

Second, your comparison of cars to airplanes isn't very compelling when considering the differences in situations. I'll try to briefly explain.

1) Cars are generally owned by the individual driving it - meaning there is a reasonable expectation of privacy there. Airplanes and airports aren't generally owned by the people in them - meaning the expectation of privacy, while it does exist, is less. That's one of the considerations in a 4th Amendment analysis for whether a gov't action is reasonable/unreasonable - "does it infringe on something where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy?"

2) In your car, are you a "captive audience," for lack of a better term? In other words, do you have control over what happens, are you subject to the whims of others without being able to take reactive action of your own, etc.? When confined in an airplane at altitude, you're much more vulnerable than when in your car.

3) How many threats by foreigners are presented against cars, and how many against airplanes? Keep in mind that it's not the raw number that matters, but rather a per capita consideration.

There are a whole bunch more distinctions, but I quite frankly don't have time to discuss them.

Finally, even assuming that airplanes and cars are the exact equivalent and that the exact same laws should apply to both - vehicle checkpoints have long been valid in this country. The justification? In light of the danger presented by drunken driving, a checkpoint that is advertised in advance (i.e., is known) and that is limited in scope and duration does not implicate the 4th Amendment because it is not unreasonable.

So there you have it. It is what it is. We might not like it, but it's the law.

 

[SCCutler]

...all of which means that (Juris) Doctor Dave Taylor has made a most important point:

Just because we don't like it, does not mean it is not the law.

More impirtantly, note well: Just because it is not fair, does not mean it is not legal.

If you are outraged (and at times, you should be), besides being angry, be active. make sure your congresscritters hear about it. You'd be amazed at how little they actually hear from most of us.

 

[TangoWhiskey]

If you are outraged (and at times, you should be), besides being angry, be active. make sure your congresscritters hear about it. You'd be amazed at how little they actually hear from most of us.

Indeed! BOOKMARK THIS LINK and use it often!

 

[Obi Heed Kenobi]

...

More impirtantly, note well: Just because it is not fair, does not mean it is not legal.

If you are outraged (and at times, you should be), besides being angry, be active. make sure your congresscritters hear about it. You'd be amazed at how little they actually hear from most of us.

That's an excellent point, and the "fairness issue" actually cuts both ways.

What I mean is that sometimes the result of government's (society's) actions aren't "fair" to the individual (is it really fair that we have to go through all of this crap because a few NTAC's decided to fly some planes into some buildings); and sometimes the result of individual rights aren't fair to society (think of what prosecutors call "technicalities," which really aren't technical at all in that they disallow mistakes and abuses of power by the gov't).

And the second point is also excellent - how many of us sit down and write reasoned, and reasonable, letters or e-mails to our elected people (that is, something more constructive than "you f--king --sclown, you better shape the f--k up).

 

[TangoWhiskey]

The whole basis in law for reasonable suspicion leading to brief detainment for questioning [one could question whether TSA's detentions are truly 'brief'--has a legal definition been placed on 'brief' detentions?] is the Terry vs. Ohio case.

If you're really interested in what the Supreme Court feels about the application of the 4th Amendment to search and seizure and reasonable suspicion vs. probable cause, I encourage you to read their written opinion on the subject:

http://supreme.justia.com/us/392/1/case.html

 

[Obi Heed Kenobi]

The whole basis in law for reasonable suspicion leading to brief detainment for questioning [one could question whether TSA's detentions are truly 'brief'--has a legal definition been placed on 'brief' detentions?] is the Terry vs. Ohio case.

If you're really interested in what the Supreme Court feels about the application of the 4th Amendment to search and seizure and reasonable suspicion vs. probable cause, I encourage you to read their written opinion on the subject:

http://supreme.justia.com/us/392/1/case.html

It's not necessarily brief - it's whatever is reasonable under the circumstances.

For instance, your average traffic stop is what, maybe 10 minutes long? But, suppose it's an icy night and dispatch is busy handling calls and directing ambulances to vehicle crashes - in that circumstance, 30 minutes might not be unreasonable.

So, there's not really a bright-line standard. It's just whatever is reasonable for the situation.

 

[alaskaflyer]

Terry v. Ohio is a very important case, and serves as a springboard as sorts for subsequent important cases, but it is only a mediocre tool for analyzing security checkpoints and investigative detentions. It was really more about the "frisk" than the "stop." There are other, better ones on the books. When I have time I will look some up.

 

[gismo]

Thanks for the clear explanation. I do appreciate it.


I would argue that the intrusion at the checkpoint as practiced by the TSA - where an individual screener can pull someone aside, place their hands all over a person's body, at some airports subject them to a virtual undressing by millimeter wave X-ray, spread their most intimate belongings out on a table for all to see, confiscate or destroy their property, and detain them until law enforcement arrives to interrogate the person for violation of nonexistent laws, based on the merest arbitrary, capricious whim with no accountability whatsoever, is not "limited intrusion". When it's carried out by agents of the federal government, it rises to the level of a violation of the Fourth Amendment, since it's unreasonable and not supported by probable cause.

Jay, I'm pretty much with you on this but to pick a nit, there's no such thing as "millimeter wave X-ray" nor does the TSA subject any person to any sort of X ray as part of their screening process. They might make use of millimeter wave RADAR. X-ray implies ionizing radiation and that means a wavelength of 100 nanometers or less, 10,000 to 40,000 shorter than millimeter wavelength RADAR. That said, there are lots of reports floating around that call the TSA whole body imagers a form of X-Ray because it can see through clothing and tissue.

 

[jesse]

I listened to this audio tape back home this weekend and my step-dad was in the other room and over-heard it. He is a small town police officer (investigator). He started yelling up a storm about them violating his rights and the TSA being ****ing retarded..and this..and that..He sounded like Kenny.

Not all police are power hungry idiots. They are out there...but most of them are professionals. I can say, almost all my contact with law enforcement in an official manner has been extremely professional.

 

[KennyFlys]

I listened to this audio tape back home this weekend and my step-dad was in the other room and over-heard it. He is a small town police officer (investigator). He started yelling up a storm about them violating his rights and the TSA being ****ing retarded..and this..and that..He sounded like Kenny.

Not all police are power hungry idiots. They are out there...but most of them are professionals. I can say, almost all my contact with law enforcement in an official manner has been extremely professional.

 

[Dave Siciliano]

More from our favorite agency as posted on AvSig.


Av week is posting about the TSA in Colorado.

Quote:
TSA has imposed new security initiatives at 13 Colorado airports with scheduled passenger or freight service, requiring background checks on anyone with access to secure areas, including general aviation pilots. By issuing the new requirements as "Directives," TSA has sidestepped the rulemaking comment and approval process.

Every airport must issue its own badges, at its own expense. Badges are only valid at the issuing airports, meaning bearers of one badge won't be allowed to access secure areas of another airport without an escort. It's no exaggeration to say that transient pilots cannot refuel their aircraft at self-service facilities at airports where the badge requirements are in effect. Monday's Denver Post reported the negative reactions to the new requirements.

Airport managers say the rules are both "draconian" and costly. "We've just taken a major step in shutting down the nation's general aviation system," was the quote from Dennis Heat, director of the Front Range Airport.

​

Best,

Dave

 

[alaskaflyer]

Latest missive from the General Counsel of TSA:

Sometimes a TSA officer may ask a passenger who is carrying a large sum of cash to account for the money. You have asked why such a question is posed and whether a passenger is required to answer.

In reacting to potential security problems or signs of criminal activity, TSA officers are trained to ask questions and assess passenger reactions, including whether a passenger appears to be cooperative and forthcoming in responding.

TSA officers routinely come across evidence of criminal activity at the airport checkpoint. Examples include evidence of illegal drug trafficking, money laundering, and violations of currency reporting requirements prior to international trips.

When presented with a passenger carrying a large sum of money through the screening checkpoint, the TSA officer will frequently engage in dialog with the passenger to determine whether a referral to law-enforcement authorities is warranted.

The TSA officer may consider all circumstances in making the assessment, including the behavior and credibility of the passenger. Thus, a failure to be forthcoming may inform a TSA officer’s decision to call law-enforcement authorities.

Francine Kerner, TSA Chief Counsel

 

[KennyFlys]

Sorry, but carrying a large sum of money is not illegal and as long as it is below the required amount to be declared, it's no one's business. Regardless of who is asking!

Ms. Kerner can stick it as far as I'm concerned.

 

[mikea]

...
When presented with a passenger carrying a large sum of money through the screening checkpoint, the TSA officer will frequently engage in dialog with the passenger to determine whether a referral to law-enforcement authorities is warranted.

The TSA officer may consider all circumstances in making the assessment, including the behavior and credibility of the passenger. Thus, a failure to be forthcoming may inform a TSA officer’s decision to call law-enforcement authorities.

Francine Kerner, TSA Chief Counsel[/I]

I'm remined or Gore Vidal's joke about Nixon and his apologists.

If a TSA agent was caught on camera putting his hands around a passenger's neck and squeezing until the passenger turns purple and dies, Francine Kerner, TSA Chief Counsel will say the passenger was having a fainting spell and the heroic TSA agent was just trying to keep her from falling.

 

[Everskyward]

In reacting to potential security problems or signs of criminal activity, TSA officers are trained to ask questions and assess passenger reactions, including whether a passenger appears to be cooperative and forthcoming in responding.

Is this not profiling behavior, which many people advocate?

 

[wsuffa]

Is this not profiling behavior, which many people advocate?

Only with proper training & experience. Which a 40 hour course can't possibly impart.

Francine is one of those that believes the TSA to have the power over the people, and you better not question it.

Remember that the TSA was created to prevent another 9-11. What they've done is create a dragnet.... and this puts the agency's general counsel on record stating as much. There is no reason that the screeners couldn't use that policy to harass a political candidate, a news reporter, or anyone else. It goes well beyond profiling. Essentially, they say "trust us".

No, I don't trust the government. Especially when they want to FORCE us to trust them.

 

[sba55]

While I think this is onerous and silly, how exactly would being referred to law enforcement be a threat? Of course, it's a major inconvenience, but I'd probably rather be referred than talk to a minimum education guy who doesn't understand the law.

I'll tell the law enforcement officer than I'm not going to answer any questions. Then, if he can come up with P.C. to arrest me, fine, my next call will be to my lawyer. But as this story illustrated, they can't just make up P.C., so what exactly does the TSA hope to accomplish? Wasting my time and a LEO's time, I suppose.

-Felix

 

[mikea]

...what exactly does the TSA hope to accomplish? Wasting my time and a LEO's time, I suppose.
...

You're not paying attention. What about "Do you want to fly today?" are you failing to understand?

 

[sba55]

You're not paying attention. What about "Do you want to fly today?" are you failing to understand?

Don't get me wrong, I think this is about as outrageous and unconstitutional as you do. That said, this guy did exactly what I would have done, and he made his flight. So what's the point?

 

[mikea]

Don't get me wrong, I think this is about as outrageous and unconstitutional as you do. That said, this guy did exactly what I would have done, and he made his flight. So what's the point?

The point is these minimum wage functional illiterates all tell each they have that power without any question and their senior council and beyond says they're right.

 

[sba55]

The point is these minimum wage functional illiterates all tell each they have that power without any question and their senior council and beyond says they're right.

Right. I think we're talking past each other. Don't disagree with you at all.

Just saying it's even sillier because his interpretation, while outrageous, doesn't actually have any effect....

 

[Palmpilot]

While I think this is onerous and silly, how exactly would being referred to law enforcement be a threat?

I have a problem with the TSA's referring matters that have nothing to do with the safety of the flight to law enforcement based on what passengers do or don't tell them about themselves. There is an element of coercion in the fact that if you don't answer their questions, they can prevent you from making your flight. That undermines the Fifth Amendment prohibition on compelling people to testify against themselves.

I'll tell the law enforcement officer than I'm not going to answer any questions.

That won't help if you have already said something to the TSA that could be used against you in court.