In April, I blogged about an incident in St. Louis where a passenger’s cash box was searched.
Since this is in the news again, I thought I would write a quick recap with some updates.
On March 29th, a metal box containing a large amount of coins and cash was flagged for additional screening. Any large amount of metallic objects in one place (loose change or rolls of coins) appear as opaque images and are difficult and sometimes impossible to clear without being searched. I blogged about this type of search last October. If we can’t see through something on the x-ray, we have to take a closer look by opening the box/bag. Due to the contents, the passenger was taken to a private screening area which is customary when screening money or high dollar value items such as jewelry.
While it’s legal to travel with any amount of money you wish to carry when flying domestically, movements of large amounts of cash through the checkpoint may be investigated by law enforcement authorities if suspicious activity is suspected. As a general rule, passengers are required to cooperate with the screening process. Cooperation may involve answering questions about their property. A passenger who refuses to answer questions may be referred to appropriate authorities for further inquiry. When traveling internationally, a passenger must file a report with U.S. Customs when flying with amounts exceeding $10,000. (or its foreign equivalent)
A TSA employee and members of the St. Louis Airport Police Department can be heard on the audio recording. TSA holds its employees to the highest professional standards. The tone and language used by the TSA employee was inappropriate and proper disciplinary action was taken.
Blogger Bob
TSA Blog Team
226 comments:
1 – 200 of 226 Newer› Newest»Bob ... with respect, exactly what information in here is an "update"? It looks like everything here was stated before. What am I missing?
@Bob "and proper disciplinary action was taken"
Which was? And what was done to their boss and trainer? And to all teh other TSOs that observed and did nothing?
Are you saying that any questions a TSO asks must be answered no matter how irrelevant to their purpose? Must I explain to a curious TSO the contents of love letters on my person?
Going to court. Let's see what happens.
It seems to me, Bob, that problems arise when there's a disconnect between those who create these policies and those who are set to enforce them. And it seems to happen way too often with the TSA.
While I really enjoy this blog giving a human face to the TSA, unfortunately, your excuse always seems to be that problems are limited to one employee.
However, this never seems to be the case. A disconnect between those in charge of the TSA and an employee can lead to more than just mere inconvenience to a passenger. It can ruin a trip or even a reputation.
My point is...no one wants to hear that you "hold your employees to the highest standards...blah blah blah." Because time and time again the problem resurfaces.
"As a general rule, passengers are required to cooperate with the screening process. Cooperation may involve answering questions about their property."
a posting on the TSA blog
"No person . . . shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself . . ."
from the 5th Amendment (part of the Bill of Rights)
Perhaps I'm dense, but I'm having a little trouble reconciling the two statements above. If "suspicious activity is suspected" by a screener, leading to an investigation by "law enforcement authorities" it would seem that a criminal case may well be underway, thus ensuring that the passenger has the full protection of his constitutional rights, including the right to not answer questions.
Is Bob misrepresenting the facts when he says that passengers are "required to cooperate" including "answering questions" or is he asserting that the Constitution does not apply when TSA is involved?
T-the-B at FlyerTalk
Its should also be noted that after the police investigated the passenger and he was cleared to travel. The TSO can be heard on the recording stating that he was not satisfied and refused to let the passenger pass the checkpoint. Until he was over ruled a second time. Your TSO repeatedly exceeded his authority.
As you have stated it is legal to travel with any sum of money within the United States. That does not mean that you are engaged in suspicious activity. So what law was he breaking and what law requires him to answer any questions. It is up to law enforcement to prove suspicious activity. The passenger is not required to prove anything.
Looking forward to the ACLU holding the TSA accountability. And what, if any action, was taken against the TSO.
Fofana ruling came down and TSA got slapped down.
What disciplinary action was taken?
If the individual was not fired, why not?
Between this case and Fofana, things ain't looking too good for the TSA. :-)
What disciplinary action was taken? I'm sure the response will be something along the lines that privacy considerations forbid you from revealing that information, but I find that answer dubious at best. TSA employees are public servants. There is a direct and justified public interest in how violators of the public trust are disciplined. I doubt the privacy act actually prohibits the release of that info anyway. Heck, you could even reveal what action (if any) was taken without revealing the names or other identifying information of the screeners, which should satisfy privacy concerns. If TSA screeners are not comfortable with even that moderate oversight, then they should not be public servants.
Bob at TSA wrote:
"movements of large amounts of cash through the checkpoint may be investigated by law enforcement authorities if suspicious activity is suspected."
What did you mean by that? Anything may be investigated. What about this situation led your staff to believe that they should notify law enforcement?
"As a general rule, passengers are required to cooperate with the screening process."
As a general rule? We're talking about detaining a person or at least preventing him from continuing to move in the direction he was headed. Please be specific. Are people required by law to cooperate with your "screening process"?
"Cooperation may involve answering questions about their property."
And it may involve jumping up and down on one foot. What does it involve?
"A passenger who refuses to answer questions may be referred to appropriate authorities for further inquiry."
Any passenger may be referred to authorities. Under what circumstances, according to TSA policy, will a passenger be referred?
--
Phil
Add your own questions at TSAFAQ.net
Short of terminating the employment of that TSO, no disciplinary action would be proper. If he was an employee of mine, he would no longer work for me.
Why is "refusing to answer a question" cause to refer somebody to law enforcement? Is there a law that says you have to answer the TSA agent's question? Honestly, that's what the guy in the airport wanted to know. The TSA still hasn't answered the question. Maybe we'll find out during the court case.
So if the man was not legally required to answer the questions, and since his personal effects contained no contraband, what was the reason this incident was escalated as it was?
I sincerely hope that the TSA and the TSO are sued out of existence.
What, exactly, was proper disciplinary action? Giving a token punishment (a frowney face sticker for that day on his record) and then promoting him for his diligence?
"movements of large amounts of cash through the checkpoint may be investigated by law enforcement authorities if suspicious activity is suspected"
Oooohh, while I'm a fan of the TSA this one don't hold much water.
While the guy was trying to make a "Ron Paul" freedom statement in the worst way I don't know of any charter for the TSA to work on behalf of local law enforcement when no laws were broken and applying a arbitrary "large amount of cash" is too much of an infringement of my liberties.
Dare I ask what is Large?
Granted I trust the guy could have just said it was from T-Shirt sales, look at the receipts and be on his way...at the same token once identified that it was under the 10k limit the TSA should have just said good day sir have a nice flight...
"As a general rule, passengers are required to cooperate with the screening process."
Unless a passenger is required to do so by a law your rules can only carry so much weight. The passenger was not breaking any laws, nothing he was doing was suspicious, and there is no law requiring him to answer any questions.
Please tell us what law he was breaking when traveling with $4700 in cash and what law he was breaking when he did not answer any questions?
So what you are saying is that the security checkpoint that was originally intended to keep dangerous items off plans how not 'evolved' into a general internal check point when law enforcement can question and require a law abiding citizen to justify the legal transportation of cash inside the country.....nice. Thanks for the info.
We'll see how long this policy stands up, now that it's being challenged. Just because TSA says it can do something doesn't mean it's legal or has the authority to do so.
You know, like in US v. Fofana, 2009 WL 1529815 (S.D.Ohio) ruling that just came down?
Find it interesting that TSA wouldn't let the judge see the policy as it was SSI, allowing TSA to be able to throw the screener under the bus for doing her job.
But TSA would never do anything to violate the 4th amendment of the Constitution, right?
I'll take a bet that a judge will smack TSA and DHS down on this one too.
Al
Please define exactly what falls under "cooperation". Do we have to do anything the screener demands? Do we have to answer any questions the screener asks? What are the limits?
Blogger Bob's summary is interesting in that, with just a few sentences, it encapsulates a whole mess of legal questions:
"... movements of large amounts of cash through the checkpoint may be investigated by law enforcement authorities if suspicious activity is suspected. As a general rule, passengers are required to cooperate with the screening process. Cooperation may involve answering questions about their property."
The questions I have are:
1. What's a large amount of cash?
2. Is a large amount of cash in and of itself suspicious?
3. The investigation may be performed by law enforcement, but TSA is not law enforcement. So there's this fuzzy line between where the security screening ends and the law enforcement investigation begins. Where is that line?
4. In an investigation, you certainly have the right to invoke the Fifth Amendment and not answer questions. But because of the fuzziness of the previous question, at what point can you start exercising that right?
5. Can what you say to the TSA before they refer you to law enforcement be used against you?
6. What constitutes reasonable questions from the TSA about personal property that a passenger is compelled to answer versus unreasonable ones?
7. If the public must make some private information available in order to exercise their right to travel domestically, what restrictions can we place on TSA to protect that privacy?
8. Who may record interrogations, and how can those recordings be used? The passenger recorded in this particular instance (which, as I understand is legal in St. Louis but may not be elsewhere). I've seen notices in some airport terminals that security uses microphones in addition to CCTV cameras.
It's going to be interesting.
It's absolutely disgusting the way Steve Bierfeldt was treated by TSA officials in St. Louis. He is a citizen of the United States of America and deserves to be treated with the rights, dignity, and respect afforded all of our citizens.
Great, you are allowed to investigate the funny looking box on the x-ray screen.
Now that you've determined it's just cash and coin, which is not contraband and which any legal citizen can carry as much cash and coin as they wish within the United States, you should be letting them go. This is especially true if they do not show up on any "terrist" watch list or currently have a warrant for their arrest.
You let people through every day with platinum visa cards with 50k limits, why can't someone take 50k cash with them to another state for any reason.
Asking why they have the money and where they got it from has no bearing on your task as airport security and you are not LEO's.
If it is going to be TSA's policy to ask about high value items that people travel with, they must ask everyone with a credit card what their limit is and what they may spend it on when they get to their destination. It's only fair.
This was asked before, but never answered, so I think it's worth asking again:
1) Once the box was opened and it was determined that it only contained currency, what threat remained to the airliner that justified detaining the passenger?
2) Or, in the alternative, what law did the TSA agents suspect ,ay have been violated that would have justified a referral to law enforcement?
Please answer #1, or if the answer is that no threat to airliner security was suspected, then please answer #2 instead?
What do large sums of money have to do with the safety of aircraft?
Do you fear someone throwing pennies at the pilot while he tries to fly the plane?
As the ACLU astutely pointed out in the lawsuit related to this incident, the TSA's job (as indicated by its name) only includes ensuring the safety of flights. If a large amount of cash is found and determined not to be a danger to anyone's safety, the TSA's job is done. Any questions about the source or purpose of the cash are irrelevant to the TSA and should never be asked.
After the persons cash box was opened and the contents identified and determined that no threat to aviation existed why didn't the TSO complete the screening sending the man on his way?
What defines a large amount of cash? Please provide United States Code!
Why has TSA declared United States currency contraband?
Where does TSA obtain authority to question anyone about property that is not a threat to aviation?
What was suspicious about someone having a fairly modest ($4,700)amount of money?
Why did a TSO illegally detain a person doing nothing more than trying to travel which is a constitutional right?
I bet someone anwsers these question and more in a court.
Want to take odds on that Bob?
The tone and language used by the TSA employee was inappropriate and proper disciplinary action was taken.
Gotta love that passive voice.
To say the tone and language used was "inappropriate" is a misnomer. Appalling is more like it - and the entire situation could have been resolved by the TSA simply saying yes/no to the question this man kept repeating. The audio, BTW, that they are referring to in the post can be found here: http://www.dailynewscaster.com/2009/04/02/audio-full-version-steve-bierfeldt-detained-and-questioned-by-st-louis-tsa/
There is, as admitted within this post, nothing that requires someone carrying less than 10K to report to authorities that the money is within the person's possession. As such, if loose coins were causing such an issue, surely it could have been resolved as the metal box was being screened. After all, I've had my purse looked into sometimes and when the items are cleared, I am free to go.
Shame on the TSA.
So Bob are you telling us that a TSA Screening checkpoint is actually a criminal search and not an adminstrative search.
That's what happen in this case!
All this sounds professional but it does not reflect my experience just a few days ago 20 June '09. I was in a small airport in Iowa going through security in order to board an American Eagle flight (4 pm to Chicago). I had one carry-on and one purse. The carry-on was passed, but my purse was dumped out. My wallet was emptied.. only about $300 cash and credit cards. Nothing more. And then a small flat velvet box containing approximately 10 gold coins on velvet was dumped out even though I said it might compromise their value. No private look at all. No separate room. She ran off leaving me with my carry-on and disappeared with my credit cards, cash and the gold coins. Out of my view. She grabbed my military ID card too. Came back and said 'sorry' but there I was with gold coins scratched and marred. Might I add I was on an emergency flight to see my dying mother? Lightly packed. I'm 59 yrs old. Her behavior was outrageous.
"As a general rule, passengers are required to cooperate with the screening process."
Absolutely; and Mr. Bierfeldt did cooperate with TSA's screening process for keeping weapons and explosives off of airliners. The problem is that once the TSA screener determined he didn't have anything that could be a threat to aviation security, he extended the process to look for things beyond TSA's mandate and legal authority.
Man it has been a rough couple of weeks for the TSA.
We have a man that claims he was denied a job at the TSA due to HIV.
The House voted on legislation to limit the MMW WBI use to secondaries only.
The gun hand off a Philly.
The Clear program gets shut down. (Not TSA's fault but you can bet on grumpy flyers)
The court ruling that the TSA engaged in an unlawful search. PDF warning.
And finally the ACLU case claiming another unlawful search.
Keep you chin up Blogger Bob, we will get this thing fixed one day.
Dear Anonymous with the gold coins and sick mother, I would sue for the value of the gold coins (at the very least).
It is my sincere hope that the anonymous poster who started her post with:
"All this sounds professional but it does not reflect my experience just a few days ago 20 June '09. I was in a small airport in Iowa going through security in order to board an American Eagle flight (4 pm to Chicago)."
and continued with:
"She ran off leaving me with my carry-on and disappeared with my credit cards, cash and the gold coins. Out of my view. She grabbed my military ID card too."
has filed or will file a complaint with the TSA, the airport FSD, American Eagle, whoever owns the airport, as well as her Congresspeople.
The TSA MUST BE STOPPED FROM TREATING PEOPLE IN SUCH A MANNER.
It's good to see you guys take responsibility for your mistakes. It's very professional.
Anonymous said...
All this sounds professional but it does not reflect my experience just a few days ago 20 June '09. I was in a small airport in Iowa going through security in order to board an American Eagle flight (4 pm to Chicago). I had one carry-on and one purse. The carry-on was passed, but my purse was dumped out. My wallet was emptied.. only about $300 cash and credit cards. Nothing more. And then a small flat velvet box containing approximately 10 gold coins on velvet was dumped out even though I said it might compromise their value. No private look at all. No separate room. She ran off leaving me with my carry-on and disappeared with my credit cards, cash and the gold coins. Out of my view. She grabbed my military ID card too. Came back and said 'sorry' but there I was with gold coins scratched and marred. Might I add I was on an emergency flight to see my dying mother? Lightly packed. I'm 59 yrs old. Her behavior was outrageous.
June 23, 2009 12:05 AM
File a complaint with the TSA.
The value of your collectables has been harmed and there is no way to recover that loss.
If TSA brushes you off then I suggest contact a lawyer and seeing if any legal action is possible.
Do try to remember any TSA employees you came in contact with, write down the event while it is fresh in your mind and if possible notate names, places and any other relevant information.
TSA has no right or charter to damage your property. Nor should the TSO have taken your property out of your visual range.
While it’s legal to travel with any amount of money you wish to carry when flying domestically, movements of large amounts of cash through the checkpoint may be investigated by law enforcement authorities if suspicious activity is suspected.
..............................
Bob, exactly what training does a TSO receive that qualifies them to determine if some random event, such as possession of cash, rises to the level of "suspicious activity? Is "suspicious activity" another way of stating reasonable suspicion or probable cause?
Wouldn't this concept of "suspicious activity" lead one to think a TSO is not acting to screen property for things dangerous to aviation but more of a general screening for anything that might be illegal?
TSO's have a fairly short training program and it seems impossible that they are properly trained to do much more than determine if an item is a weapon, explosive or incendiary or not.
Also could you please articulate just what threat to aviation any sum of money presents?
Please also state why TSA has declared United States currency as an item of contraband. Any links to other US laws/regulations that give TSA a role in the control of US currency would be appreciated.
Thanks.
While I believe that the TSA and LEOs were out of line, I also believe that he should also KNOW the law instead of simply asking "Am I required by law to answer the question."
The bottom line is that he has no constitutional right to board the plane.
Randy
The blog is nice.
Unfortunately it has little to do with what the flying public is made to endure.
This is supposed to be a CIVIL search undertaken for OUR safety.
We are not your inmates and you are not our jailers, but that is how poorly trained TSA personnel operate.
Bad attitude, weak training, designed to harass and humiliate, not to serve and protect.
Nice try with the blog, but you're the bad guys.
That's nice & all to hear about this incident but lets get to the real news.
http://www.gadling.com/2009/06/22/travel-alert-clear-security-ceases-operation/
Or you can just go to flyclear.com
" I doubt the privacy act actually prohibits the release of that info anyway."
You'd be wrong. As I posted in the last blog, I ran my own business in the 1990's and to this day still have my employee records if they want to use me as a reference. I have to be very carefull as to WHAT information I can give out.
And even if the case is public, as in the case of several Sheriff Officers in MN who were convicted of improper money handling, depsite court documents and many news stories, the employer has to be careful as to what is said, other than he/she was discipled/suspended/fired.
TSO-Joe
One of the main problems with the TSA is simply the shear desire by a small percentage of agents to exert power over passengers, when they have no such authority if the passenger's actions don't indicate a threat.
Maybe this lawsuit will direct the TSA back to their intended purpose, since the agency clearly has lost control of it's purpose.
Bob:
1. Exactly what prevents you from issuing the sort of statement that anonymous presented?: "It's absolutely disgusting the way Steve Bierfeldt was treated by TSA officials in St. Louis. He is a citizen of the United States of America and deserves to be treated with the rights, dignity, and respect afforded all of our citizens." Instead we get the same old empty "appropriate action has been taken."
2. You have yet to address one of the main issues raised by this incident: From the audio recording it was amply clear that the TSO was absolutely incapable of understanding why someone might ever take a respectful, principled stand against such questions. I realize that you think that checkpoints are fourth amendment free zones, but would it be possible to at least provide a scintilla of training on how TSOs are to handle such situations?
3. According to the Fofana ruling, the TSA refused to disclose SSI SOP for an in-camera, ex parte review. Does the TSA seriously believe that thousands of entry-level employees can be trusted with information while a federal judge cannot?
movements of large amounts of cash through the checkpoint may be investigated by law enforcement authorities if suspicious activity is suspected.
More passive voice. In other words, he doesn't want to say that "we will investigate your cash" since the TSA has no right to do so.
And could we get that definition of "suspicious activity" that so many have asked for? In particular, could you tie it to your procedures in light of Fofana?
Cooperation may involve answering questions about their property. A passenger who refuses to answer questions may be referred to appropriate authorities for further inquiry.
In this case, property is cash. Outside of papercuts, it appears that dollar bills can't do much harm to anyone. So how does carrying any amount of cash endanger air travel.
Mike
I believe the TSO should be fired, I don't really enjoy hearing this story again. However, I have no sympathy for the passenger. That passenger wanted to cause trouble. For one, why would you ever turn on a voice recorder after entering a private screening area unless you knew trouble was about to happen. He was legally not answering the officers questions but was also throwing questions back at them in a tone that was cocky and dissmisive. The passenger wanted to cause a scene probably for some political agenda. Obviously his goal was achieved because the media is having another field day upside TSA's head even though their were multiple law enforcment agencies involved with this incident. Why would you not answer questions about your stuff honestly, who is it gonna hurt. At our airport we get tons of people bringing thousands of dollars worth of jewelry through and they are actually happy with our screening it makes them feel safe. I had a jewelry store owner tell me one time the safest he feels while transfering jewelry is after going through TSA. We are just curious and ask about his store and his jewelry, it has nothing to do with security we are just making simple conversation. Now stop and think about what that TSO was thinking with all his training and SSI information in his head. I will tell you what he was thinking because he didn't notice at the time this guy was just trying to play him for media attention. That TSO was thinking "This guy is hiding something he doesn't want any of us to find. My training tells me that if he is hiding something I need to make sure it is NOT and IED." This story is just another ridiculous media stampede all because some guy wanted to make TSA look bad for some stupid reason.
What About Bob? Where did he go?
Great lets beat a dead horse......
@Bob "and proper disciplinary action was taken"
Which was? And what was done to their boss and trainer? And to all teh other TSOs that observed and did nothing?
Are you saying that any questions a TSO asks must be answered no matter how irrelevant to their purpose? Must I explain to a curious TSO the contents of love letters on my person?
___________________________________
This is rediculous. I don't kno why this would even be brought up again. So that every one can start compaining all over again about how money is none of TSA's business.
It is no ones business how the person was disciplined. Why would their superiors be punished?! It was the one persons actions.
And I guess the blog is saying that you do have to answer TSA's questions, otherwise the police can be called over and you can answer their questions.
No one else stood around and watched what was going on because they were in a private room. Not sure you caught that one.
Thats so nice that you carry love letters around with you. I wish that someone wrote me love letters. As usual people making stupid analogies. I wouldn't expect anything else.
What disciplinary action was taken?
If the individual was not fired, why not?
June 22, 2009 6:30 PM
___________________________________
NO ONES BUSINESS!!!!!
What did you mean by that? Anything may be investigated. What about this situation led your staff to believe that they should notify law enforcement?
___________________________________
The search should have been simple and the fact that he was traveling inside the US should have made the discussion end immediately. But unfortunately the boy being questioned was a smart mouth and that is why it escelated. Call it what you will, but the boy was not cooperating. He made it harder on himself. He was just egging everyone on, although the officers should not have given into it.
I sincerely hope that the TSA and the TSO are sued out of existence.
___________________________________
HA, that might happen!
Please tell us what law he was breaking when traveling with $4700 in cash and what law he was breaking when he did not answer any questions?
___________________________________
There was no law being broken. His not answering any quesions is suspicious in my eyes and there for he can speak with law enforcement.
No offense to the 59 year old Anonymous poster above, but relative to being screened, who cares why you were flying (not known to TSA at the time they selected you) nor how old you are?
Quite honestly, the huge battle fought against profiling says that nobody gives a hoot as to your age, sex, race, etc.
Sorry you didn't hold on to your coins and demand a private screening.
1) Once the box was opened and it was determined that it only contained currency, what threat remained to the airliner that justified detaining the passenger?
___________________________________
This is where the problem lies. The TSO should have let him go. That is why this is on going. The TSO was wrong.
2) Or, in the alternative, what law did the TSA agents suspect ,ay have been violated that would have justified a referral to law enforcement?
___________________________________
No law was broken. But the fact that he was so uncooperative, was apparently suspicious to the TSO.
All this sounds professional but it does not reflect my experience just a few days ago 20 June '09. I was in a small airport in Iowa going through security in order to board an American Eagle flight (4 pm to Chicago). I had one carry-on and one purse. The carry-on was passed, but my purse was dumped out. My wallet was emptied.. only about $300 cash and credit cards. Nothing more. And then a small flat velvet box containing approximately 10 gold coins on velvet was dumped out even though I said it might compromise their value. No private look at all. No separate room. She ran off leaving me with my carry-on and disappeared with my credit cards, cash and the gold coins. Out of my view. She grabbed my military ID card too. Came back and said 'sorry' but there I was with gold coins scratched and marred. Might I add I was on an emergency flight to see my dying mother? Lightly packed. I'm 59 yrs old. Her behavior was outrageous.
___________________________________
Well you should have gotten her name and filled out a complaint form. Complaining on here won't get you anywhere.
Any comments on the recent Fofana decision, Bob?
3 The Court is aware that the details of the TSA's screening procedures may be classified as "sensitive security information" ("SSI") by the
Under Secretary of the TSA pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 114(s)(1)(c) and 49 C.F.R. § 1520.5. The Court suggested during the suppression
hearing, however, that any such materials could be submitted to the Court for an in-camera, ex parte review. (5/13/2009 Hr'g Tr. 27-28); See
Gilmore, 435 F.3d at 1131 (ordering the TSA to submit SSI under seal for in camera, ex parte review of the relevant policy). The
Government did not do so.
Quite simply the Government failed to produce evidence from which this Court could conclude that the search of
Fofana's luggage was "no more extensive or intensive than necessary, in light of current technology, to detect the
presence of weapons or explosives;" or that the search was "confined in good faith to that purpose." 4 Aukai, 497 F.3d at
962. As the Government bears the burden of establishing that a search was constitutional, that failure is outcome
determinative [*22] and the Court must grant Fofana's Motion to Suppress.
Anonymous said... ( June 23, 2009 12:05 AM)
"Her behavior was outrageous."
Please fill out a Got Feedback form.
Located Here:
Got Feedback
“After leaving your feedback, it will be emailed directly to the person in charge of TSA customer service at the airport for which you are commenting.”
I'm sorry to hear of your terrible checkpoint experience.
-Tim “H2H”
TSA Blog Team
Anonymous' gold coin story brings up a question, what is TSA's liability when they damage or destroy personal property in an inspection?
So everyone on this blog wants to bash the TSA for doing the job that, if I got this straight, evryone was crying for prior to and right after 9/11...I do not believe that the TSA has written any laws including the law about the transportation of cash. That law is a banking law that is applied and adhered to everyday.
It would be very enlightening to identify the careers of the bloggers so I may diasect your rules and regulations. Used car salesman, doctor, lawyer, gas station owner, priest, teacher..shoudl I go on..Most of you violate peoples right everyday for a much less reason than public safety. You do it because you want to and you think only of yourselves. I know this if an incident like 9/11 happens again you all will be the first to blame the TSA and any other gov't agency for it. Get over it..All of you are cahstising an entire agency because of one individuals errant behavior...that's like comparing one malpractice suit and condemning evbery doctor, yet you continue to go to the doctor just like you will continue to fly because you believe it to be safe enough...and if you don't then you are an idiot to fly..
There's a discussion between the TSA's Chief Privacy Officer and the Identity Project about whether we are required to answer questions at TSA checkpoints starting at 55:00 of this video from the CFP conference on June 3, 2009.
TSA = Transportation Security Administration
I believe the operative word here is SECURITY.
So, did the cash present a danger to the other passengers on the plane? Would it have blown up? Could the cash be used as a weapon? Don't think so!
Did the TSA agent overstep his bounds? Absolutely!
RB said...
After the persons cash box was opened and the contents identified and determined that no threat to aviation existed why didn't the TSO complete the screening sending the man on his way?
What defines a large amount of cash? Please provide United States Code!
Why has TSA declared United States currency contraband?
Where does TSA obtain authority to question anyone about property that is not a threat to aviation?
What was suspicious about someone having a fairly modest ($4,700)amount of money?
Why did a TSO illegally detain a person doing nothing more than trying to travel which is a constitutional right?
I bet someone anwsers these question and more in a court.
Want to take odds on that Bob
----------------
Ill take odds on that RB
1. TSO's and STSO's have the authority to layer additional screening on passengers if there is reasonable justification. Not wanting to answer simple questions about property you have freely submitted for searching is considered a reasonable justification by the US government so the TSO did not want to end the screening process.
2. Not really sure about the large amounts of cash but that would be a question for local law enforcment not TSA. However TSA can call LEO's stating "I found this huge pile of cash on this guy that won't cooperate with the screening process so I thought you might want to have a look." We are looking for explosives but we can still call the LEO if we find possible other illegal activities. I don't know much legal mumbo jumbo but good samaritan law pops into my head for that one.
3. TSA never declared anything about cash being contraband. Dense objects that X-rays can't penetrate require physical search which includes large amounts of coins or metal cash boxes loaded with organic paper like material known as cash. LEO's however like to question people that don't want to co-operate with security and have large amounts of cash.
4. Once you submit your property for screening at a checkpoint its like the police having a search warrant for your house. Its common sense to assume the reason someone doesn't want to answer simple questions about their property is because they want to hide something in their property.
5. Nothing was suspcious about the money except it had to be physically searched because the X-ray operator couldn't make out its contents. Once finding the large amount of cash the TSO had to offer private screening. If the passenger was being disruptive or not answering simple questions then the TSO has the authority to get the LEO's involved and they are very interested in large amounts of cash that has no story attached to it.
6. TSA can not detain anyone. LEO's can detain passengers. However, if you just try to walk through security without completing the screening process (which is complete when all alarms have been cleared and the TSO returns all your property to you saying have a nice day) you will cause a breech and the airport will be evacuated and completely re-screened. The TSO needed to clear the cash box and before he was finished the LEO's were detaining the passenger.
Thats what I believe to be the truth with my training and past experience working for TSA so far (1 year today!). I don't know any legal stuff but I know what I am trained and taught by DHS. I personally believe that passenger wanted to cause a scene and release anything he caught on this voice recorder to the media. Probably some political thing since he is a campaign worker. I also believe that the TSO and LEOs involved were way out of line. You don't get angry at passengers no matter what happens, its like TSA Taboo #3. #1 is letting RB fly without additional screening =P (playful joke, please don't freak out). Probably going to be awhile before we find anything out about it though.
Once again more helpful info from TSA Alaska.
You say "As a general rule, passengers are required to cooperate with the screening process". This is the same run-around the TSA gave Steve. Is it the law that we have to cooperate? And we need transparency with what happened to the TSA agents. We want to know what exactly their punishment was.
RB said...
"After the persons cash box was opened and the contents identified and determined that no threat to aviation existed why didn't the TSO complete the screening sending the man on his way?
What defines a large amount of cash? Please provide United States Code!
Why has TSA declared United States currency contraband?
Where does TSA obtain authority to question anyone about property that is not a threat to aviation?
What was suspicious about someone having a fairly modest ($4,700)amount of money?
Why did a TSO illegally detain a person doing nothing more than trying to travel which is a constitutional right?
I bet someone anwsers these question and more in a court.
Want to take odds on that Bob?"
---------------------------------
Answered in ordered asked...
The screener should have finished the screening process and sent the passenger on his way. Why didn't that happen? Have to ask that screener. What that screener did was wrong and he should be held accountable, including lossing his job, etc. But don't ask a question Bob or the blog staff can't answer. They are not that screener. Or I will put it another way. Why do some school teachers do terrible things with their students? Why would anyone know why except the person who does it?
Uh, RB, that has been clearly defined. $10,000 or more must be delcared. I won't post the code; look it up yourself; I'm sure you already know. But did you know if you travel with large amounts of currency from the U.S. into other nations, take any European country for example, you must not only declare it upon leaving the U.S., but you must declare it when you land with that particular country. How much before you are required to declare depends upon the country. If you goto England and do not declare your currency over a specific amount, for example, not only will they question you, they will take your money until you can prove you do not intend to use it for criminal or terrorist activities. Don't believe me, look it up.
TSA has not delcared large amounts of currency as contraband. The law requiring you to delcare large amounts of currency when you travel overseas was in place many, many years before TSA was established. We have gone over this in the blog. Stop ignoring answer you don't like, RB. Read the blog, not just your own post.
TSA actually has the authority to question you about anything you carry into the check point, or check baggage area, that could potentially be used against our aviation infrastructure. It has been well established that the trafficing of large amounts of currency has been used to support terrorism; however, TSA should NOT question you about your currency EXCEPT to ask you if it is declared when you travel overseas. If any TSA person ask you otherwise, they are incorrect to do so. Airport police, however, can question you about it. Both of these instances have been upheld by our court system.
There is nothing suspiciious about carrying $4,700. However, you do seem to insult those less-well-to-do by suggesting amounts of money they don't have is modest. Just my opinion. :) As example, I do community service and know people to whom $4,700 would be a life changing amount...
Again, do not expect Bob or anyone else at TSA to know why that screener did what he did. He might now have told someone why he did it, but was he honest in his answer? He should be punished, in my opinion, fired, but stop asking questions of the blog staff that they can't possibly answer. I might as well ask you why someone you never met did something bad. Have you ever worked with a large corporation? If you did, can you explain the actions of everyone who works there? I doubt it.
Lastly, this screen should have to explain himself in court. You are correct there. But explain why you somehow seem to tie this personally with blogger Bob?
Anonymous said...
"As the ACLU astutely pointed out in the lawsuit related to this incident, the TSA's job (as indicated by its name) only includes ensuring the safety of flights. If a large amount of cash is found and determined not to be a danger to anyone's safety, the TSA's job is done. Any questions about the source or purpose of the cash are irrelevant to the TSA and should never be asked."
Not exactly true. Just like you, TSA employees are citizens of this country, and we reserve all the rights you do. If I see large amounts of cash on a person, I have every legal right to inform the police.
If you see me walking down the street and believe I might be involved in criminal activity, you have every legal right to report me to the police.
No TSA employee should question you about you money, except to ask it is declared if you are traveling overseas. But don't try to argue a TSA employee can not inform the police of your cash. If you do, can you please cite any rule, law, whatever, that says citizens can't do this?
RB said...
"Why did a TSO illegally detain a person doing nothing more than trying to travel which is a constitutional right?"
I agree that what the TSO did was illegal, but no one has the constitutional right to fly.
I have read you post regarding the right to make a contract. And I noticed how you never answered the questtion put to you... you seemed to do what you accuse TSA of doing all the time: avoid the question.
However, our court system has clearly stated, on various occasions, actually written in the opinion of various judges, no one has the right to fly, that it is not protected by the constitution.
Your argument that you have the right to make a private contract is not the same as the right to fly.
Just as it is said no one has the right to drive, that driving is a privilege and can be taken away, our courts have ruled so too flying.
That does not mean you have to agree, but as far as it goes being a constitutional issue in our court system, it seems to be a dead issue. Sorry.
Reading the Fofanna decision (thanks Al, for posting the link to it, and to TK for posting the link to it on FlyerTalk) gives me almost renewed hope that one day the TSA will find itself constrained to acting within the bounds of the Constitution.
Mind you I'm sure the TSA will find ever new and more creative ways to subvert the Constitution, but this is at least a minor victory for the good guys.
And the worst part... I haven't heard the word "sorry" mentioned anywhere in this response.
Or anywhere else for that matter.
Lame post. Lame reasoning in the post. Nothing but security theater folks. This isn't about security anymore. It is about power and an example of that power as opposed to power by example. We have reduced to the same lack of disregard of human rights we used to accuse the CCCP of.
In Bob's original post on this incident, Bob said "Movements of large amounts of cash through the checkpoint may be investigated by law enforcement authorities if criminal activity is suspected."
Well, since we are free citizens and Congress has passed no law against carrying cash while traveling within the United States, what created the suspicion of a crime justifying the investigation of Mr. Bierfeldt in this case? What specific crime was he suspected of committing, and what linked him to that crime?
I listened to the tape, and there was no reference to any evidence that might have created such a suspicion. Presumably the mere possession of American currency by an American in America in any amount freely decided by the American does not and cannot in itself imply criminality, or create reasonable suspicion. To suspect criminality confuses logic. Some crimes might involve carrying cash. But many legitimate purposes do as well. Moreover, since no one could be compelled to give an incriminating answer in the interest of "cooperating" with TSA (and no adverse inference could be drawn from failing to do so under established 5th Amend. law), and since people might have many reasons why they would prefer not to explain there legal decision to carry cash to a nosy government agent, a policy to ask questions about legal property with no reasonable basis for suspecting a crime seems very ill-advised.
TSA's mission statement informs the public that the TSA "protects the Nation’s transportation systems to ensure freedom of movement for people and commerce." Yet, without any finding the slightest evidence that Mr. Bierfeldt threatened aviation or was engaged in other crime, his "freedom of movement" was impeded.
"Freedom of movement" starts with freedom, including being free from unreasonable questioning by the Federal government. Any Federal form we are asked to complete must be approved by OMB to verify its inquiries are authorized by law. Yet apparently TSA staff, including the statement posted by "Bob" here, cannot provide the specific legal authority for the type of questioning that took place here. A citizen is not "acting like a child" to question such an inquiry and seek to preserve his privacy.
This blog is sponsored by the Transportation Security Administration to facilitate an ongoing dialogue on innovations in security, technology and the checkpoint screening process.
.............................
Isn't it just amazing that this blog goes silent when the topic at hand is something TSA wishes would just go away?
This is what TSA calls "ongoing dialogue".
Quoted:
" Al Ames said...
We'll see how long this policy stands up, now that it's being challenged. Just because TSA says it can do something doesn't mean it's legal or has the authority to do so.
You know, like in US v. Fofana, 2009 WL 1529815 (S.D.Ohio) ruling that just came down?
Find it interesting that TSA wouldn't let the judge see the policy as it was SSI, allowing TSA to be able to throw the screener under the bus for doing her job.
But TSA would never do anything to violate the 4th amendment of the Constitution, right?
I'll take a bet that a judge will smack TSA and DHS down on this one too.
Al
June 22, 2009 7:26 PM"
----------------------------
WOW! Great victory! A guy that was commiting bank fraud has evidence that otherwise would never have been found, suppressed because the search was deemed illegal and everyone here is saying how great it is. I just hope that none of the money he swindled belonged to anyone you know!
RB says..
After the persons cash box was opened and the contents identified and determined that no threat to aviation existed why didn't the TSO complete the screening sending the man on his way?
Maybe the TSO believed there was over 10k in cash. That could be why law enforcement was called. A correct action.
What defines a large amount of cash? Please provide United States Code!
It is 10,000 USD out of the country has to be declared. I am not looking for the law.
Why has TSA declared United States currency contraband?
It hasn't. The amount is suspicious not contraband.
Where does TSA obtain authority to question anyone about property that is not a threat to aviation?
It doesn't there was an LEO in with the TSA employee.
What was suspicious about someone having a fairly modest ($4,700)amount of money?
Maybe the fact that he didn't want to answer any questions about property made it seem suspicious.
Why did a TSO illegally detain a person doing nothing more than trying to travel which is a constitutional right?
TSA didn't detain.. the LEO was there as well
Sorry for the delay folks. I was out sick yesterday. It was as if somebody was pounding a gutter nail through my head all day long.
I'll start moderating momentarily.
Thanks!
Bob
EoS Blog Team
A link to something Bruce Schneier wrote that trigger me to come back here:
http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2009/06/fixing_airport.html
"I do not believe that the TSA has written any laws including the law about the transportation of cash. That law is a banking law that is applied and adhered to everyday."
What law applies to flying domestically with $4700 in cash?
"If I see large amounts of cash on a person, I have every legal right to inform the police."
Why would you do that? There's nothing illegal about carrying cash unless one is taking more than $10,000 out of the country, in which case it must be declared.
TSOWilliamReed writes:
That passenger wanted to cause trouble. For one, why would you ever turn on a voice recorder after entering a private screening area unless you knew trouble was about to happen.
Perhaps because ... oh, I don't know, the passenger suspected that his rights were about to be violated, and he wanted a witness that would support his side of the story? And the passenger chose to defend his own rights, rather than passively see them taken away?
Sheesh. Why do people insist on blaming the victim?
Not exactly true. Just like you, TSA employees are citizens of this country, and we reserve all the rights you do. If I see large amounts of cash on a person, I have every legal right to inform the police.
If you see me walking down the street and believe I might be involved in criminal activity, you have every legal right to report me to the police.
No TSA employee should question you about you money, except to ask it is declared if you are traveling overseas. But don't try to argue a TSA employee can not inform the police of your cash. If you do, can you please cite any rule, law, whatever, that says citizens can't do this?
----
You're right, as a "citizen", I can't violate your 4th amendment rights (well, technically I can, but if I were to violate those rights, the evidence could still be used against you in court). I can, however, be subject to criminal liability if I break any laws in violating those rights.
You're an agent of the government. You're forced to follow the Constitution. It doesn't matter that your work isn't related to law enforcement. If you violate the Constitution in the performance of your duties, whether or not you've gone beyond the scope of such duties.
So no, you're not "just like any other citizen" when it comes to this type of thing.
WOW! Great victory! A guy that was commiting bank fraud has evidence that otherwise would never have been found, suppressed because the search was deemed illegal and everyone here is saying how great it is. I just hope that none of the money he swindled belonged to anyone you know!
---
So just because he did something bad the Constitution doesn't apply to him? Good law is usually made because of bad people. If we can't give protection to the worst people among us, the best people among us are going to suffer from the loss of those freedoms.
The real issue is the arrogant attitude of the TSA folks more than anything. Also, are the TSA screening procedures intended to identify any and all possible questionable activity by private citizens? That amounts to a general law enforcement chckpoint rather than an aircraft security checkpoint. It also represents a loss if personal freedom.
Mind you I'm sure the TSA will find ever new and more creative ways to subvert the Constitution, but this is at least a minor victory for the good guys.
___________________________________
For the good guys!? So are you one of the good guys? One of the guys who carries around fraudulant documents and gets away with it. If you think thats a good guy then there is something wrong with you not TSA.
Anonymous said:
"WOW! Great victory! A guy that was commiting bank fraud has evidence that otherwise would never have been found, suppressed because the search was deemed illegal and everyone here is saying how great it is. I just hope that none of the money he swindled belonged to anyone you know!"
Well, the illegal search rendered the evidence suppressed, so Fofona may get away with fraud. TSO's are not trained in law enforcement, this is a great example of why they should stick with what they ARE trained to do- keeping aviation safe, and not try to play LEO and investigate civil or criminal matters, and end up ruining a potential case.
TSOWilliamReed said...
I believe the TSO should be fired, I don't really enjoy hearing this story again. However, I have no sympathy for the passenger. That passenger wanted to cause trouble. For one, why would you ever turn on a voice recorder after entering a private screening area unless you knew trouble was about to happen.................................................
I didn't post the rest of your nonsense.
Why would a person audio record after being taken to a closed, out of public view room?
He was afraid and rightfully so that some TSA employee was going to subject him to an unreasonable interrogation.
Your basically suggesting that TSA is Lilly white and pure and would never harass, retaliate or abuse a person who is traveling.
Yeah right!
Not only does this TSO need to be fired but the whole of TSA needs to be fired along with him.
Your agency is an embarrassment to the United States.
Anonymous said...
June 23, 2009 7:48 PM
Uh, RB, that has been clearly defined. $10,000 or more must be delcared.
Not to TSA!
TSA has not delcared large amounts of currency as contraband.
Yes TSA did, please refer to the Operational Directive that has been posted on this blog in past months. I won't look it up for you since it has been posted numerous times but it does declared that money in excess of $10,000 is contraband.
The law requiring you to delcare large amounts of currency when you travel overseas was in place many, many years before TSA was established.
Currency is declared to the Customs agent at the border, departing and arriving, not to TSA and not prior to reaching the border checkpoint which is normally in the secure area. Other countries laws and regulations have no bearing on what happens in this country. Having traveled through much of the world I am experienced with procedures in several countries.
But explain why you somehow seem to tie this personally with blogger Bob?
Finally, Bob is the public face for TSA on this blog. I don't feel I tied this to him personally. He is not responsible for others actions but he does have the ability to convey information from TSA to the public.
Anon.... June 24, 2009 11:33 AM
(RB) Why has TSA declared United States currency contraband?
(Anon) It hasn't. The amount is suspicious not contraband.
...........................
For the many of you TSO's who wish to remain anonymous here is the posting from Blogger Bob from some time back.
It is clear that TSA did declare United States currency of $10,000 and over an item of contraband.
And for the same TSO's who wish to hide in the shadows, TSA has no role under the Bank Secrecy Act or any other law for the control of currency. If you disagree then just post a cite Supporting your position.
...................................
Operation Directive: Discovery of Contraband During the Screening Process OD-400-54-2 May 9, 2005
Expiration – Indefinite
Summary - This directive provides guidance to ensure nationwide consistency in the appropriate referral or initiation of civil enforcement actions for incidents involving discovery of contraband during TSA screening procedures.
Procedures - When TSA discovers contraband during the screening process that is not a TSA Prohibited Item, the matter should be referred to the local Law Enforcement Officers as appropriate. An Enforcement Investigative Report should not be initiated.
Examples of such contraband include:
- Illegal Drugs
- Drug Paraphernalia
- Large Amounts of Cash(10,000.00)
The OD was signed by TSA's Chief Operating Officer at the time, Jonathan J. Fleming
For the rest of the document, (contact numbers and e-mails) please use the FOIA process for OD-400-54-2
Thanks,
Bob"
Maybe the fact that he didn't want to answer any questions about property made it seem suspicious.
.........................
No one should have to disclose to TSA why they have something that is clearly no threat to aviation.
It is not TSA's business why a person has any item as long as that item is not prohibited.
It is apparent from reports around the country that TSO's have problems with just doing the basic screening that is required of them.
Stop trying to play "Joe Cop" and stick to your jobs screening for weapons, explosives and incendiaries.
Jim Huggins said... Bob ... with respect, exactly what information in here is an "update"? It looks like everything here was stated before. What am I missing? June 22, 2009 5:37 PM
----------------------
Jim, the fact that the employee was disciplined and mention of the way large amounts of coins look on an X-ray are new. Plus, this is in the news again and many are coming to our blog to see what we have to say about it.
---------------------
Megan said... While I really enjoy this blog giving a human face to the TSA, unfortunately, your excuse always seems to be that problems are limited to one employee. June 22, 2009 5:43 PM
--------------------
Megan, we have 40,000 + officers in the field. I’m sure you can understand that the majority of our officers do not conduct business in this manner. (The way the TSO spoke to the passenger) We are well aware from the contact center and Got Feedback that we have some rude employees in the field. We’ve gone to great lengths to train our workforce on how to better engage with passengers, but any realist knows there will be a bad apple here and there. This bad apple was uncovered and disciplined as others have been after being identified through our contact center, Got Feedback, and the old fashioned way of finding a supervisor at the checkpoint and reporting an officer.
--------------------
Anonymous said... And what, if any action, was taken against the TSO. June 22, 2009 6:08 PM
--------------------
The employee was disciplined. As I’ve discussed before, the privacy act of 1971 prevents TSA from publically stating what disciplinary actions have been taken on an employee.
I have asked the Office of Chief Counsel to craft a blog post explaining disciplinary actions.
--------------------
Anonymous said... You let people through every day with platinum visa cards with 50k limits, why can't someone take 50k cash with them to another state for any reason. June 22, 2009 8:46 PM
-------------------
Credit cards are easy to trace which is why most who are using money for illegal reasons choose to use cash.
----------------------
Dave said...what law did the TSA agents suspect ,may have been violated that would have justified a referral to law enforcement? June 22, 2009 9:12 PM
---------------------
No law was being broken. The TSO believed the passenger was being evasive by not answering questions which led to him calling the LEOs. The LEOs believed the passenger to be suspicious as well and decided to look into the matter further.
---------------------
Anonymous said...She Came back and said 'sorry' but there I was with gold coins scratched and marred... June 23, 2009 12:05 AM
---------------------
I’m sorry to hear about your bad experience. As has already been stated, please use the Got Feedback program to contact the airport you were screened at.
GotFeedback? You can also contact the TSA Claims Management Branch
---------------------
Anonymous said... Bob: From the audio recording it was amply clear that the TSO was absolutely incapable of understanding why someone might ever take a respectful, principled stand against such questions. I realize that you think that checkpoints are fourth amendment free zones, but would it be possible to at least provide a scintilla of training on how TSOs are to handle such situations? June 23, 2009 1:02PM
--------------------
See my response to Megan above.
-------------------
Dave said... Anonymous' gold coin story brings up a question, what is TSA's liability when they damage or destroy personal property in an inspection? June 23, 2009 3:08 PM
--------------------------
TSA Claims Management Branch It is the mission of this office to reimburse passengers that have experienced loss or damage due to the negligence of a TSA employee.
Bob
TSA Blog Team
RB said...
Anon.... June 24, 2009 11:33 AM
(RB) Why has TSA declared United States currency contraband?
(Anon) It hasn't. The amount is suspicious not contraband.
...........................
For the many of you TSO's who wish to remain anonymous here is the posting from Blogger Bob from some time back.
It is clear that TSA did declare United States currency of $10,000 and over an item of contraband.
And for the same TSO's who wish to hide in the shadows, TSA has no role under the Bank Secrecy Act or any other law for the control of currency. If you disagree then just post a cite Supporting your position.
...................................
Operation Directive: Discovery of Contraband During the Screening Process OD-400-54-2 May 9, 2005
Expiration – Indefinite
Summary - This directive provides guidance to ensure nationwide consistency in the appropriate referral or initiation of civil enforcement actions for incidents involving discovery of contraband during TSA screening procedures.
Procedures - When TSA discovers contraband during the screening process that is not a TSA Prohibited Item, the matter should be referred to the local Law Enforcement Officers as appropriate. An Enforcement Investigative Report should not be initiated.
Examples of such contraband include:
- Illegal Drugs
- Drug Paraphernalia
- Large Amounts of Cash(10,000.00)
The OD was signed by TSA's Chief Operating Officer at the time, Jonathan J. Fleming
For the rest of the document, (contact numbers and e-mails) please use the FOIA process for OD-400-54-2
Thanks,
Bob""
---------------------------------
It is clear that RB loves to argue semantics, but nothing of any real substance.
RB, it should have been made very clear to you that money in the amount of $10,000 or over must be delcared when leaving the country.
I have asked a person before if they have declared such an amount. They answered yes. The screening process ended (the cash was found while searching for something else, and it was very obvious it was much more than $10,000 - the person even told me the specific amount without me asking for it).
If large amounts of money were actually contraband, the screening process wouldn't have ended then.
You might be taken a bit more seriously if you didn't pounce on mistakes people make when they post statements, and then hold them to it for the rest of the blog. That is childish. Let me ask, do you often in your life say "no backsies!"?
RB said...
"Isn't it just amazing that this blog goes silent when the topic at hand is something TSA wishes would just go away?"
When did this blog go silent? You really need to stop making things up RB!
Anonymous said...
"If I see large amounts of cash on a person, I have every legal right to inform the police."
Why would you do that? There's nothing illegal about carrying cash unless one is taking more than $10,000 out of the country, in which case it must be declared."
No, its about suspicion. As a citizen, which employees of TSA are, believe it or not, if I believe a crime is being broken I have every constitutional right to report it to the police. Why would I think a crime is being committed? Its pretty simple; I ask if the money is declared and if you are traveling overseas. You refuse to answer either questions, which IS YOUR RIGHT. Then it is MY RIGHT to report it to the LEO. Or are you going to argue that a citizen can not do that?
Make no mistake, what this TSO did was wrong, in my opinion. Once he reported it to the LEO that should have been the end of it as far as TSA is concerned. I do not know all of the circumstances of what happened; you don't either, no matter what you read. Lets hope it goes to court, and lets let the court decide correctly. My opinion is that the TSO was seriously in the wrong, if that matters to you.
Andrew said...
"Not exactly true. Just like you, TSA employees are citizens of this country, and we reserve all the rights you do. If I see large amounts of cash on a person, I have every legal right to inform the police.
If you see me walking down the street and believe I might be involved in criminal activity, you have every legal right to report me to the police.
No TSA employee should question you about you money, except to ask it is declared if you are traveling overseas. But don't try to argue a TSA employee can not inform the police of your cash. If you do, can you please cite any rule, law, whatever, that says citizens can't do this?
----
You're right, as a "citizen", I can't violate your 4th amendment rights (well, technically I can, but if I were to violate those rights, the evidence could still be used against you in court). I can, however, be subject to criminal liability if I break any laws in violating those rights.
You're an agent of the government. You're forced to follow the Constitution. It doesn't matter that your work isn't related to law enforcement. If you violate the Constitution in the performance of your duties, whether or not you've gone beyond the scope of such duties.
"So no, you're not "just like any other citizen" when it comes to this type of thing.
_________________________________
You said I'm "forced" to follow the Constitution as an "agent" of the government. I guess a person who isn't an agent of the government shouldn't be forced to follow the Constitution? Huh?
You said.."So no, you're not "just like any other citizen" when it comes to this type of thing.", to which I say:
HOLY COW!!!
Uh, yes I am. I'm exactly like a citizen when performing my job: I retain all of my Constitutional rights even when at work, and even if you don't seem to want me to. If I see a crime I report it; just like you have to right to do, so do I.
An example: I saw a man hit a woman in the food court of the airport where I work. This food court was before the checkpoint, the public side of the airport. I reported that to the police. Not as a TSA employee, but as a citizen.
Another example, I saw a group of men watching porn on their computer on the secure side of the airport past the checkpoint (not kidding). Children were walking around. I reported that too, not as an employee of TSA, but as a citizen.
If I think a crime is being comitted, I report it, even if none of you want me to. So if I think someone is about to go overseas without delcaring their large amounts of cash to the proper agency (NOT TSA, I agree with RB about this), I have EVERY right to report it. Guess what, I'll even do this while I'm not working... doesn't that upset you?! :)
You really lost me in your argument, can you please explain it again.
Bob, TSA's claim management department is notorious for not paying out in claims. How many of Pythias Brown's victims were reimbursed by TSA once it was determined that he stole from passenger's luggage? I doubt it was more than 15%. Nice try though.
RB said...
"Uh, RB, that has been clearly defined. $10,000 or more must be delcared.
Not to TSA!"
I never said it had to be delcared to TSA. Don't lie and put words in my mouth.
RB said...
"Having traveled through much of the world I am experienced with procedures in several countries."
So have I. And you missed the point entirely. Our government is actualy more more lax in regulating the flow of currency. Current news suggest we should be otherwise. Its interesting to see poeple like you complain about TSA, but never give ANY credit for doing things that make sense. If you wonder exactly what I mean, re-read my original post.
RB said...
"Finally, Bob is the public face for TSA on this blog. I don't feel I tied this to him personally. He is not responsible for others actions but he does have the ability to convey information from TSA to the public."
Fair enough, but then why have you asked him why specific TSO have done what they did? How in the world do you realistly expect Bob, or anyone else on the blog staff, to know that? Haven't we all said at one point in our lives, maybe more than once, we don't understand why some people do what they do.
I might believe you that you haven't made it personal, but the tone of your post toward Bob are harsh, negative, and somewhat cruel. And You ask him questions you know he can't answer, not that he could but won't answer, and attack him for not answering. That seems very personal to me. And not very constructive.
better to be safe than sorry in this situation. I think anything that looks suspicious should be checked. Like some good old fellow said"hope for the best, prepare for the worst"
TSOWilliamReed wrote:
"TSA never declared anything about cash being contraband"
Someone anonymously wrote:
"TSA has not delcared large amounts of currency as contraband."
Someone (else?) anonymously wrote:
"[TSA] hasn't [declared United States currency to be contraband]."
Wrong, wrong, and wrong.
In February, 2009, I received via FOIA request a copy of TSA Operations Directive 400-54-2, which lists "Large amounts of cash ($10,000)" as an example of contraband.
Note that Bob at the TSA blog quoted a slightly abbreviated version of this on December 31, 2008, in the comments for the "Blogger Roundtable at TSA HQ with Secretary Chertoff and Administrator Hawley" post (browse there first or you can't go straight to Bob's comment, because the TSA blog is still broken).
--
Phil
Add your own questions at TSAFAQ.net
Great job in Columbus the other day. Those pickled mangoes sure were a threat to aviation security.
What next? Blow up a bunch of bananas because they might have a tarantula lurking around?
TSOWilliamReed wrote:
"TSA never declared anything about cash being contraband"
Someone anonymously wrote:
"TSA has not delcared large amounts of currency as contraband."
Someone (else?) anonymously wrote:
"[TSA] hasn't [declared United States currency to be contraband]."
Wrong, wrong, and wrong.
In February, 2009, I received via FOIA request a copy of TSA Operations Directive 400-54-2, which lists "Large amounts of cash ($10,000)" as an example of contraband.
Note that Bob at the TSA blog quoted a slightly abbreviated version of this on December 31, 2008, in the comments for the "Blogger Roundtable at TSA HQ with Secretary Chertoff and Administrator Hawley" post (browse there first or you can't go straight to Bob's comment, because the TSA blog is still broken)."
------------
Phil, if you can't get past the idea that contraband means something not allowed, then there really is no point talking to you.
However, upon clicking on the first link of your post, I find where Trollkiller quotes part of the directive that states:
When TSA discovers contraband during the screening process that is not a TSA Prohibited Item, the matter should be referred to the local Law Enforcement Officers as appropriate."
You don't seem to understand the "as appropriate", do you? As has been explained to me when I receieved my training, that simply means if it is not declared, or if there is othe suspicious activity - then the appropriate thing to do is notify the LEO. Not simply to notify the LEO regardless.
I have screened people with large amounts of currency. Nothing unusual there. If they happen to be traveling overseas and state the money is declared, then as far as the currency is concered, thats it, screen process is over. No LEO involved.
That seems to be where the problem comes from - the "as appropriate". You and others do not understand it, and shouldn't infer that this means every time we find large amounts of currency we have to notify a LEO. That is your mistake.
As Trollkiller state on that link:
Does the requirment compell TSOs "to report something that is legal but claimed to be contraband?
I have spent a good amount of time pondering this issue.
If a TSO referred a passenger to a LEO because the TSO felt the amount of money being carried was suspicious, I would be more forgiving."
Notice that despite how much time Trollkiller has spent thinking about this issue, he believes the Directive compelles the TSO to report the currency regardless of suspicions activity. He is mistaken, because he ignore or does not have the training to understand the term "as appropriate". And you seem to make the same mistake.
So many of you claim to know the law back and forth, yet you make mistakes like this in interpertation all the time.
If I think a crime is being comitted, I report it, even if none of you want me to. So if I think someone is about to go overseas without delcaring their large amounts of cash to the proper agency (NOT TSA, I agree with RB about this), I have EVERY right to report it. Guess what, I'll even do this while I'm not working... doesn't that upset you?! :)
June 24, 2009 5:56 PM
...................
A person is screened at your checkpoint and you note they have a substantial sum of cash.
Based on that information alone how can you suspect them of any crime?
Lets go a step farther, they are traveling out of the country with the large sum of cash, now what crime do you feel they have committed?
At your airport just where does a person file FinCen Form 105 with customs for transporting cash in or out of the country? Before the TSA checkpoint or after the TSA checkpoint?
Lastly why do you feel a person having cash is a threat to air commerce?
Does possession of any other legal item in large amounts get the same response from you? Lets think about a Stamp Collector who has a collection with them, the value of which could be many times $10,000. Would you alert a LEO if you observed this person? Why or why not?
..........................
Hey Bob - or any other TSA screener.
It's been posted here that a LEO is called if illegal drugs are suspected. Do you guys get training on what illegal drugs look like either to the naked eye or on an xray image?
If not, what criteria do you use in deciding to call in a LEO? If so, do you know the rationale for training you in conducting searches that go beyond the scope of TSA's mandate to screen for weapons, explosives, and similar threats to aviation safety.
"Why would I think a crime is being committed? Its pretty simple; I ask if the money is declared and if you are traveling overseas. You refuse to answer either questions, which IS YOUR RIGHT. Then it is MY RIGHT to report it to the LEO. Or are you going to argue that a citizen can not do that?"
So someone who's not committing any crime by carrying cash and refuses to answer questions TSA has no grounds to ask is suspicious? I think if a TSO ever starts asking me questions about my money, I'll call for a real law enforcement officer to report the TSO's suspicious behavior. After all, look at how many TSOs have been shown to be thieves! Any TSO asking about citizens' money might be trying to steal it.
Better safe than sorry.
It seems like the same questions are asked again and again. I would imagine that the only people who will get clear answers are those who can compel them.
I do like the tone of the response wherein a person says that this guy must have been expecting trouble, else why turn on a recorder? Tell you what: with this attitude on the part of the cops (and yes, I know TSA isn't technically cops), *I'd* have a recorder running -- just in case TSA gets a wild hair while I'm in their control. Ooops, I bet that makes me a suspicious character, right?
TSO WilliamReed--
"I believe the TSO should be fired, I don't really enjoy hearing this story again. However, I have no sympathy for the passenger. That passenger wanted to cause trouble. For one, why would you ever turn on a voice recorder after entering a private screening area unless you knew trouble was about to happen. He was legally not answering the officers questions but was also throwing questions back at them in a tone that was cocky and dissmisive. The passenger wanted to cause a scene probably for some political agenda."
-----------------------
You seem like a reasonably intelligent person, so please take this as an attempt to explain a misunderstanding and not as an attack; that is, I want to try to clarify what I take to be this man's "political agenda." But first: I dispute your characterization that this young man used "a tone that was cocky and dissmisive." I listened to the tape when it was first released, and I don't recall a single instance in which he was anything but polite and respectful, even when treated in an absolutely atrocious manner. In fact, he repeatedly pointed out that he did not know the law and was merely asking them as government agents to clarify the line between "request" and "direct order." I have read nothing that indicates that this young man came to the airport with the intention of sparking a confrontation with the TSA or police. I can only assume that if his bags had passed through he would have simply gotten on the plane and gone on his way. The only people who appeared to be looking for "trouble" were the law enforcement and TSA officers involved.
For some of us (although clearly not all), one benefit of so-called American "freedom" consists in the presumption that, unlike in Soviet-style, closed societies, government employees will not engage in arbitrary document checks, etc. When we are confronted with such a situation, some of us see it as our patriotic duty to make a respectful, principled stand. This may seem silly to you, but many, many American citizens feel this way.
Look at it this way: When I go to the bank, I understand that I may be asked to provide certain details that I would not give to a stranger on the street, even if he asked me politely. These details would presumably relate to the professional responsibilities of the teller. Now if the teller, having already collected all the relevant information, proceeded to ask me, oh say, where my children went to school or what kind of underwear I was wearing, I would refuse to answer. Perhaps you are a less private person and would have no problems answering such questions-- the line is different for everyone, I suppose. The fact of the matter is that this young man was questioned about something that was none of the officers' (both TSA and police) business. And he basically told them that it was none of their business. It should have ended right there. Period. You don't need to agree with the particular place that he has chosen to draw his own personal line, but you ought to respect his right to do so.
Furthermore, you suggest that his decision to legally record the conversation indicates that he was looking for trouble. But without the recording, would you have believed that the officers were really that abusive?
forex robot said...
better to be safe than sorry in this situation. I think anything that looks suspicious should be checked. Like some good old fellow said"hope for the best, prepare for the worst"
----------------------------------
What "situation>" It was clear to everyone involved that he did not pose any threat to aviation. I imagine that you sometimes leave your house or apartment. Well then, according to your logic you ought to have no problem submitting to an extensive search. After all, better to be safe than sorry!
Exactly what do you think "freedom" means if it allows for uniformed government employees to detain citizens in some back room and demand that they answer questions regarding completely legal activities?
Bob--
Thanks for answering my question re: TSO training on how to handle passengers who assert fourth and fifth amendment rights at the airport. Could you please answer the second part of my question:
" According to the Fofana ruling, the TSA refused to disclose SSI SOP for an in-camera, ex parte review. Does the TSA seriously believe that thousands of entry-level employees can be trusted with information while a federal judge cannot?"
Thanks for your time, and I hope that you're feeling better.
Also, to all those who claim that privacy laws prohibit Bob from telling us what disciplinary action was taken, can you explain what the problem would be if the TSA were to tell us that the employee involved was fired (suspended/rewarded/etc.) if his name was not released? As far as I know, we don't know the name of the TSO involved.
f orex r obot said...
better to be safe than sorry in this situation. I think anything that looks suspicious should be checked. Like some good old fellow said"hope for the best, prepare for the worst"
June 24, 2009 6:08 PM
........................
Yes, better safe than sorry when all your doing is getting your commercial website link on a blog.
Perhaps you can tell us what danger US currency presents to a commercial aircraft.
Anonymous said...If I think a crime is being comitted, I report it, even if none of you want me to. So if I think someone is about to go overseas without delcaring their large amounts of cash to the proper agency (NOT TSA, I agree with RB about this), I have EVERY right to report it. Guess what, I'll even do this while I'm not working... doesn't that upset you?! :)
You really lost me in your argument, can you please explain it again.
******
Let me explain it to you. The passenger in this incident WAS NOT traveling overseas and well below $10,000. He was not breaking any laws and under no legal obligation to explain why he had cash with him.
If you listen to the recording of the incident he was polite at all times. No one answered his question, is he legally required to answer that question and if he is please provide a link to the law. Not the TSA guideline that asks passengers to cooperate.
Anonymous said...
RB said...
"Uh, RB, that has been clearly defined. $10,000 or more must be delcared (sic).
Not to TSA!"
I never said it had to be delcared (sic) to TSA. Don't lie and put words in my mouth.
You said $10,000 must be declared. I said not to TSA. So what is the lie?
In fact $10,000 only has to be declared when one is traveling internationally and then to the Customs Officer at the port of entry or departure. So it really is never a concern for TSA
RB said...
"Having traveled through much of the world I am experienced with procedures in several countries."
So have I. And you missed the point entirely. Our government is actualy (sic) more more lax in regulating the flow of currency. Current news suggest we should be otherwise. Its interesting to see poeple (sic) like you complain about TSA, but never give ANY credit for doing things that make sense. If you wonder exactly what I mean, re-read my original post.
What other countries require in the way of customs procedures is not germane to this discussion. The laws of other countries are of no concern to TSA.
Lastly the lack of knowledge displayed by several here about TSA Operations Directive 400-54-2 which does declare United Stated currency of $10,000 and greater as an item of contraband is disturbing.
Then we have continuing reports of TSA confusion about how to screen shoes, in the bin, not in the bin and so forth from around the country. The procedure varies within airports from checkpoint to checkpoint.
On top of that we have reports surfacing of entire airports where half of the TSO's cannot pass the basic tests that qualifies them to work a checkpoint.
All while TSA is more than willing to Strip Search children while not providing proper disclosure to the people being coerced into the Strip Search Machines.
Someone at TSA tell me how any of this is good for freedom?
A lot of the complaints in here have merit. But consider this. If you have been stopped, why not just answer questions rather than argue? Do you really want to be inconvenienced and go to court? Is it worth it? It takes two people to have a conflict. Carrying a metal box full of cash and apparently, a mix of other items, is going to cause a blip in the process. Was there a good reason to not have gone into a bank and converted that money to a draft? Or, why not package it differently? Cash in an envelope, coins in a transparent bag, no metal box. Or, carry the box but leave it empty, or, check a piece of luggage and put the empty box in it. I don't think I would be happy if my business associate was toting around thousands in cash. It's bad business and not necessary.
Regarding the gold coins, yes that IS a terrible tragedy. But why would anyone assume that the TSA is not going to inspect them? Why not on the way to the airport, stop at a UPS store and send the coins insured? Yes, the insurance may be high but the coins are now ruined and the misfortunate lady should have assumed that they might be inspected at the airport. If she still really wanted to carry them, then each should have been individually wrapped, preferably in plastic (you can buy single-coin collector capsules for any size coin) and she should have spoken to a supervisor before getting in the line. I have approached TSA supervisors when I had a concern about an item I was carrying and you know what - they like that. It's a good idea to envision the worst case scenario before flying and do whatever is possible to avoid a problem.
While the TSO's tone and language were inappropriate, he really should have been disciplined for exceeding the bounds of the warrantless administrative search that the TSA is authorized to do.
As soon as the difficult-to-x-ray box was recognized as harmless cash, the passenger should have been sent on his way. If the TSO had reasonable suspicions of criminal activity at that point, then he could bring in the LEOs. But he had none (at least none that was revealed in the recording or any of the public statements we've seen).
Cash, in and of itself, is not suspicious.
"But he refused to answer questions about the money!" you say.
(1) The question shouldn't have been asked because the passenger was already clear at that point. (2) He didn't refuse to answer the question, he wanted clarification about his rights before he answered. This is perfectly reasonable. If the TSO or LEOs had simply said, "no, you're not required to answer", then the passenger could have been on his way. (3) Taking the Fifth is not suspicious. Every lawyer on the planet will tell you to take the Fifth, even if you're innocent (some add "especially if you're innocent"). Talking to the authorities can only hurt you in court; it cannot help you.
The TSO is not a lone bad actor here--the LEOs also completely mishandled the situation.
But the real problem is that the TSA encourages TSOs to get nosy about passengers carrying cash, even offering potential bonuses of $250. (I'm basing this on statements in the Fofana ruling.) This provides incentive to exceed the bounds of the administrative search to which the TSA is authorized to conduct.
My prediction: TSA will settle the lawsuit with an apology, a promise to rescind the perverse incentives for TSOs, and re-training of the TSOs on the legal boundaries of a warrantless administrative search for weapons and explosives.
Please disband the TSA and restore our rights to travel freely about the country.
Anonymous said...
1. Uh, yes I am. I'm exactly like a citizen when performing my job: I retain all of my Constitutional rights even when at work, and even if you don't seem to want me to. If I see a crime I report it; just like you have to right to do, so do I.
2. An example: I saw a man hit a woman in the food court of the airport where I work. This food court was before the checkpoint, the public side of the airport. I reported that to the police. Not as a TSA employee, but as a citizen.
3. Another example, I saw a group of men watching porn on their computer on the secure side of the airport past the checkpoint (not kidding). Children were walking around. I reported that too, not as an employee of TSA, but as a citizen.
1. Sure, you can do anything you like. But, as we have discussed in the first 90 posts, there is nothing criminal about carrying large amounts of cash. You have no more reason to report that to a LEO than you would a paperback book. It's none of your business why anyone is carrying a large amount of cash and "He was acting evasive" appears, in this case, to be "He was asking about his rights."
2. Good for you. Seriously. In this case, a crime was committed.
3. Now you're just being a busy-body. Again, please mind your own business. I don't know who you would report it to, but there was no crime being committed. Stop being the morality police.
Mike
Lines missing from post:
We sincerely apologize to Mr. Bierfeldt first and foremost for violating his constitutional rights, and secondly for the extremely unprofessional conduct our staff displayed in their treatment of him.
Further, we apologize to the American public for using heightened security measures after 9/11 as an excuse to exceed our search authority and engage in unlawful searches that violate the privacy rights of passengers. TSA is taking steps to discourage the elements of our agency's culture that make such egregious rights violations "business as usual".
Anonymous wrote:
Uh, yes I am. I'm exactly like a citizen when performing my job: I retain all of my Constitutional rights even when at work, and even if you don't seem to want me to. If I see a crime I report it; just like you have to right to do, so do I.
---------------------------------
As a fellow federal employee we do in fact have fewer rights under the constitution than those we serve.
5 U.S.C. §7321-26 prohibits us from fully enjoying our first ammendment rights. Commonly referred to the Hatch act, amongst other things it prohibits us from soliciting, accepting or receiving political contributions, running for public office in a partisan political election, and regulates the number of political bumper stickers we may have on our cars.
Phil said...
TSOWilliamReed wrote:
"TSA never declared anything about cash being contraband"
Someone anonymously wrote:
"TSA has not delcared large amounts of currency as contraband."
Someone (else?) anonymously wrote:
"[TSA] hasn't [declared United States currency to be contraband]."
Wrong, wrong, and wrong.
In February, 2009, I received via FOIA request a copy of TSA Operations Directive 400-54-2, which lists "Large amounts of cash ($10,000)" as an example of contraband.
Note that Bob at the TSA blog quoted a slightly abbreviated version of this on December 31, 2008, in the comments for the "Blogger Roundtable at TSA HQ with Secretary Chertoff and Administrator Hawley" post (browse there first or you can't go straight to Bob's comment, because the TSA blog is still broken).
--------------------------
Here it is and I quote
"When TSA discovers contraband during the screening process that is not a TSA Prohibited Item, the matter should be referred to the local Law Enforcement Officers as appropriate.
Examples of such contraband include:
• Illegal drugs
• Drug paraphernalia
• Large amounts of cash ($10,000)"
You were right, this has been around since 2005. TSA looks for items DHS and TSA have declared prohibited on airplanes. Guns, Knives, liquids over 3.4oz, IEDs, and other items. The contraband listed above are not on the TSA prohibited item list however TSA has to inform Local Law Enforcment that we found those items if we do find them during the screening process. From my understanding of it anyways. Question is how would a TSO know a passenger is carrying 10000 dollars? I don't believe we are allowed to count money like that I think its more like if we believe the cash to be over 10,000 dollars we call the LEO and let him/her deal with it. Its a local law enforcment thing just like if we happen across a bong or a baggy of marijuana. We call them up and say hey I have a passenger here with possibly 10,000 dollars on him/her, come take a look. This is my general understanding of the rule. I don't believe just TSA is considering $10,000 contraband it should be a DHS and local law enforcment combined decision. I don't know how to currently find that information out but I will work on it, or maybe Bob knows.
Great. More people are reciting the "you don't have a right to fly" mantra.
Guess what, that's not the claim made by those who dislike the TSA. Did you know that, oh goosestepping defenders of the TSA? That's not the claim made by those who dislike the TSA.
I have no right to force an airline to sell me a ticket. I do have the right to seek out an airline and try to convince them to sell me a ticket. They name a price and if that price is agreeable I will buy it. I have a right to private contract.
So has the Supreme Court determined I do not have a right to private contract? No, actually, it has not. Instead the courts have devoted much activity to defending the sanctity of the contract.
Except in a few cases, contracts are upheld. Third parties have no right to interfere in a private contract.
The TSA is objected to because the TSA is a third party interfering with a private contract. The complaint is not that they interfere with a right to fly. The complaint is that they interfere with a private contract, and do so in ways detrimental to the well-being and liberty of those who have purchased those private contracts called airline tickets.
So keep repeating the mantra "baah no right to fly baah baah baah" and keep not noticing what the actual problem is.
Hi Bob --
RE your comment
"We are well aware from the contact center and Got Feedback that we have some rude employees in the field. We’ve gone to great lengths to train our workforce on how to better engage with passengers, but any realist knows there will be a bad apple here and there. This bad apple was uncovered and disciplined as others have been after being identified through our contact center, Got Feedback, and the old fashioned way of finding a supervisor at the checkpoint and reporting an officer."
---------------
It's great that Got Feedback is there, but it is a tool for dealing with problems after they happen. I've always preferred to prevent problems than clean up the resulting mess.
I'm going to repeat my comment that this system is purely reactive, and that a proactive approach (secret shoppers) is needed. It would help identify "bad apples" before their behavior triggers a passenger complaint.
I firmly believe that most employees who get identified as rude through existing methods have been treating passengers shabbily in ways large and small long before a complaint gets filed.
"An ounce of prevention is better than a pound of cure."
Mark
qui custodiet ipsos custodes
P.S. The TSA might want to remind its personnel that the overwhelming majority of people they deal with are law abiding citizens, and to treat them and their property with courtesy and respect.
TSOWilliamReed said...
"Its common sense to assume the reason someone doesn't want to answer simple questions about their property is because they want to hide something in their property."
Gee he's not doing the TSA any favors saying something like that. It kind of explodes the idea that this was just one untrained guy in St Louis. Do you check to see if those claiming to be TSOs on this blog really are?
Quote
This story is just another ridiculous media stampede all because some guy wanted to make TSA look bad for some stupid reason.
It sure did not take much to make them look bad, that tells (or should) tell you something.
winstonsmith said...
Mind you I'm sure the TSA will find ever new and more creative ways to subvert the Constitution, but this is at least a minor victory for the good guys.
You did read the part about he had the fake passports for bank fraud right? Not exactly a GOOD guy....
Its good to see you guys take responsibility for your mistakes. It's very professional.
it is not that the paper money itself is dangerous or will jeapordize air travel. the fact is TSA is required to report anything that "might" be illegal to the police that are their supporting the mission. if you have a drug pipe and it is found, the police get called. If you have a lot of money and it might be leaving the country, the police get called.
Anything that is suspicious could get the police called. If you stand there and say nothing when asked a simple question, thats pretty darned suspicious, and the police will get called.
TSA is right; Bierfeldt is wrong. Here's an excerpt from http://www.skatingonstilts.com/skating-on-stilts/2009/06/the-wisdom-of-marion-barry.html
The ACLU has sued Janet Napolitano over the "detention" of Steven Bierfeldt. Bierfeldt is a Ron Paul official who put $4700 in cash in a moneybox through TSA's xray machine and then refused to answer questions about the box or the cash. He recorded everything on his iPod and got 15 minutes of fame for the exploit in April. Now he wants a declaratory judgment and attorney's fees. His conduct was wacky at best. He was asked where he works, where he obtained the money and why he was in St. Louis.
In response to the questions, Mr. Bierfeldt never provided answers. Instead he met each question with a question, asking again and again whether he was required by law to answer the questions. It's definitely not normal behavior.
Or, as one officer put it, "Are you from this planet?"
We live in a world where power is decentralized. Things that only government could do in the past can now be done by anyone. Once upon a time, only the police could set someone up for a crime. Now, ordinary citizens can aspire to set up the government.
Color me skeptical, but I think that's what Bierfeldt was doing. His nonresponses are carefully couched (and maybe coached) to be weird and uncommunicative; it's the sort of thing you'd expect from a passive-aggressive wuss who's hoping to provoke -- and tape -- an angry response.
And what do you know, he just happens to be carrying his iPod in a pocket where he can turn on the "record' function -- just as the search begins.
Proper disciplinary action should have included something for the unjustified detainment while being subjected to the inappropriate "tone and language used by the TSA employee"
From Bierfeldt's recording of the interrogation, it is clear that no law enforcement personnel were present while the non-LEO was rudely threatening to bring them in.
Beirfeldt's detainment by the TSA employee
Hey Bob,
Care to comment on TSA’s recent detention of author Mark Sable at LAX over the text content of his manuscripts *read* by TSA during a gate-grope secondary? (http://tinyurl.com/nsqdcg )
In your response, try to avoid trite phrases such as: as a general rule, passengers are required to cooperate.
Try to address specifically the issue of how *reading* a passenger’s personal papers is within the TSA’s statutory scope to protect aircraft from weapons, explosives, and incindiaries. Try to address what potential threat to aviation can be contained in text and what specific text may have been declared contraband by TSA in the same way TSA has extra-legally declared cash to be contraband.
Hah, no comments posted since the 24th. My demand for an apology better show up soon.
Meanwhile, yet another TSA blunder, the detention of Mark Sable, a writer, for having an oh-so-dangerous script with him.
So TSA's purview has now extended to the contents of the documents we carry? I guess we'd better pack our dangerous documents in checked baggage so that your goons don't get a chance to see the word "terrorist" and completely overreact.
Or, crazy idea here, you could actually properly train your frontline employees to do their jobs without constant blunders. Stop violating people's rights (you TSAers all need to memorize the constitution if you ask me), stop overstepping your bounds, stop over-reacting. Stop wasting everyone's time trying to act like an intelligence (or is that intelligent?) agency and get back to basics: weapons, hazmat, and explosives. I have doubts that your work force can do even that job correctly, but at least there would be fewer opportunities for them to screw up.
And while this lawsuit is progressing, we learn of yet another unlawful and unconstitutional detention with harsh questioning by Transportation Security "Officers" at LAX for the non-crime of having a comic book script in carry-on.rein
I realize that 99 44/100% of you TSA employees are the product of the public school system and thus did not have a real civics class, but I would think that during TSA training things like the first amendment and the limits of your search and denial authority would have been covered and discussed in the comic book style manuals used for said training.
Guess I was wrong. What next, questioning and denial of boarding for carrying a pocket constitution or FIJA literature in carry-on?
What do large sums of money have to do with the safety of aircraft?
I believe it has nothing to do with the safety i believe it just related to money washing and such subjects . but i fully agreed that it has to be investigated
So heres my take. In any matter that further screening is needed, I think anyone and all should cooperate. It is the professionalism at stake for the TSA. If they can be 100% compliant and trustworthy why not search what is needed regardless of the contents. Is is known that terrorist have money so what is to say that a cash box is not a cover up??
Your back on the air again. During the hiatus I askedthe following question. I still await an answer.
Hey Bob - or any other TSA screener.
It's been posted here that a LEO is called if illegal drugs are suspected. Do you guys get training on what illegal drugs look like either to the naked eye or on an xray image?
If not, what criteria do you use in deciding to call in a LEO? If so, do you know the rationale for training you in conducting searches that go beyond the scope of TSA's mandate to screen for weapons, explosives, and similar threats to aviation safety.
@Adrian: You posted that "But the real problem is that the TSA encourages TSOs to get nosy about passengers carrying cash, even offering potential bonuses of $250. (I'm basing this on statements in the Fofana ruling.) This provides incentive to exceed the bounds of the administrative search to which the TSA is authorized to conduct."
---> The Fofana opinion was quoting an opinion fron the 9th Circuit published in the 1980's that had to do with FTS, one of the private security contractors responsible for checkpoints well before the creation of the TSA. (The case was $124,570 U.S.
Currency, 873 F.2d at 1243). While TSO's may very well get rewards for reporting "suspicious activity" that results in some sort of criminal prosecution or administrative seizure, the $250 mentioned in Fofana was talking about a reward that was given from Customs or the Airport Police personally to the FTS employees reporting such activity to said authorities. I bring this up only as a factual consideration—I still believe that the TSA’s activity does not comport with the 4th amendment vis-Ã -vis reporting currency to authorities. They also work “hand in hand” with law enforcement even though one hand may not know what the other is doing at any given time.
Anonymous said...
I have approached TSA supervisors when I had a concern about an item I was carrying and you know what - they like that. It's a good idea to envision the worst case scenario before flying and do whatever is possible to avoid a problem.
June 25, 2009 11:31 AM
...................
Well if anyone from TSA is involved in your travel you can pretty much expect a "worst case secnario".
Anonymous said...
it is not that the paper money itself is dangerous or will jeapordize air travel. the fact is TSA is required to report anything that "might" be illegal to the police that are their supporting the mission. if you have a drug pipe and it is found, the police get called. If you have a lot of money and it might be leaving the country, the police get called.
Anything that is suspicious could get the police called. If you stand there and say nothing when asked a simple question, thats pretty darned suspicious, and the police will get called.
June 28, 2009 12:09 PM
..........................
Everything you say you will do above exceeds the limits of an Administrative Search.
Your actions would likely make prosecution of any crime uncovered in this manner impossible.
TSA is tasked to keep WEI and other prohibited items off of aircraft.
Thats it, nothing more!
Of course when more than half of screeners at some airports fail the testing to insure they can do their jobs it really calls into question just how TSA is spending the taxpayers monies.
Anonymous said...
Quote
This story is just another ridiculous media stampede all because some guy wanted to make TSA look bad for some stupid reason.
It sure did not take much to make them look bad, that tells (or should) tell you something.
June 26, 2009 9:48 AM
I disagree. The passenger did absolutely nothing to "make TSA look bad for some stupid reason." If the officer involved had simply provided an answer to his repeated, respectfully stated question ("Am I required by law to answer this question?") we would never have even learned his name.
Persipidus said...
So heres my take. In any matter that further screening is needed, I think anyone and all should cooperate. It is the professionalism at stake for the TSA. If they can be 100% compliant and trustworthy why not search what is needed regardless of the contents. Is is known that terrorist have money so what is to say that a cash box is not a cover up??
June 30, 2009 10:36 AM
I have no idea what you are talking about. It is also "known" that terrorists have body cavities. Why don't we give the TSA carte blanche to perform invasive searches of said cavities? Who's to say that we're not hiding something up there? For goodness sake's, what in the world does "freedom" mean to you if it does not prevent government agents from detaining innocent people and treating them in an abusive manner?
And to all those who have suggested that there is something inherently wrong with "answering a question with a question": how do you justify the TSO and LEO's repeated refusal to provide a direct, clear answer to his very simple yes/no question?
Finally, a request for Bob... please do everything in your power to get a response to our concerns regarding your interpretation of relevant privacy laws. I'm not a lawyer but I would be flabbergasted if the law actually prohibited you from providing a more detailed explanation of the disciplinary action taken against this employee. Also, from the vague references you have provided us, it appears that this employee was not terminated. Why?
I forgot to include this in my previous post: I am still waiting for an explanation of why the TSA would possibly refuse to allow a federal judge to review ther "SSI SOP," a document which is presumably provided to thousands of entry-level employees.
Persipidus said...
So heres my take. In any matter that further screening is needed, I think anyone and all should cooperate. It is the professionalism at stake for the TSA. If they can be 100% compliant and trustworthy why not search what is needed regardless of the contents. Is is known that terrorist have money so what is to say that a cash box is not a cover up??
June 30, 2009 10:36 AM
................................
Another person getting their commercial website info posted.
"If they can be 100% compliant and trustworthy why not search what is needed regardless of the contents."
..................................
I assume you mean TSA in the above statement.
TSO's across the country have proven they cannot be trusted.
I know it is a very small minority of TSO's but reports of thieves, drug dealers and other various types of criminals infesting TSA continue with distressing regularity.
The problem for me is to determine which TSO to trust. With only very brief encounters I feel the smart path is to trust none of them.
A TSO asking about something that has no bearing on aircraft safety could easily be collecting information for wrongdoing. I see no reason to answer those types of questions.
When entering a checkpoint I present myself and possessions for inspection. To me that is fully cooperating.
Having money or any other item that does not present a threat to the aircraft is not TSA's concern.
TSA should restrict their Administrative Searches of travelers to WEI and other prohibited items.
Ayn R. Key said...
"Great. More people are reciting the "you don't have a right to fly" mantra.
Guess what, that's not the claim made by those who dislike the TSA."
Have you been reading the blog at all? Or are you just kidding? Many people in here have post what you claim they haven't said. And, specifically, Gilmore stated this - it was part of his law suit against TSA.
Maybe read what people say before you comment on it.
If a TSO wants to report a suspected crime to a LEO, fine. But interrogating and detaining a passenger with unwarranted, useless, and slow-motion screening, is unconstitutional, and you ought to get called on it, as in Fofana.
Randy Said… Hey Bob - It's been posted here that a LEO is called if illegal drugs are suspected. Do you guys get training on what illegal drugs look like either to the naked eye or on an xray image? If not, what criteria do you use in deciding to call in a LEO? If so, do you know the rationale for training you in conducting searches that go beyond the scope of TSA's mandate to screen for weapons, explosives, and similar threats to aviation safety. 7/1/09
--------------------
Hi Randy. Our officers are not looking for illegal drugs, so they are not trained on identifying narcotics. When drugs are found, it is always because we were looking for something else. Here is an example: A passenger’s bag is being searched because our officer spotted a knife on the x-ray screen. While searching the bag for the knife, our TSO comes across a baggie of a leafy green substance with rolling papers. They weren’t looking for marijuana, but they found it and reported it.
As far as pills are concerned, about the only time illegal pills are found is when a LEO becomes involved in a search (for a variety of different reasons not related to drugs) and recognizes the pills. Of course, LEOs are trained to identify illegal drugs.
----------------------
Anonymous said... Finally, a request for Bob... please do everything in your power to get a response to our concerns regarding your interpretation of relevant privacy laws. I'm not a lawyer but I would be flabbergasted if the law actually prohibited you from providing a more detailed explanation of the disciplinary action taken against this employee. Also, from the vague references you have provided us, it appears that this employee was not terminated. Why?
---------------------
I know this isn’t what you want to hear, but the Privacy Act of 1971 prevents me from being able to discuss the details of this employee’s disciplinary actions. I have asked the legal folks to write a post on disciplinary actions. Stay tuned…
Bob
TSA Blog Team
Hatch Act said...
"Anonymous wrote:
Uh, yes I am. I'm exactly like a citizen when performing my job: I retain all of my Constitutional rights even when at work, and even if you don't seem to want me to. If I see a crime I report it; just like you have to right to do, so do I.
---------------------------------
As a fellow federal employee we do in fact have fewer rights under the constitution than those we serve.
5 U.S.C. §7321-26 prohibits us from fully enjoying our first ammendment rights. Commonly referred to the Hatch act, amongst other things it prohibits us from soliciting, accepting or receiving political contributions, running for public office in a partisan political election, and regulates the number of political bumper stickers we may have on our cars."
----------------------------
What you post here is something that is simply no different than what most people encounter in private industry. I worked in the private industry for 20 years, and I faced many of the same restrictions that the Hatch Act imposed on government employees.
Examples:
While at work we were not allowed to participate in political activities. Common sense; you are being paid for your time at work. If you use company resources and time to support an activity, many companies will punish you, incluind up to firing you. This is simply part of what the Hatch Act states, so its really no different.
Many private companies have rules forbidding dating between management and staff. We might ask how can private companies tell people who they can and can't date, yet they do. Do they turn a blind eye to it? Sometimes. Government does the same thing, by the way. So again, no different.
My behavior in my private life could have gotten me fired from my private industry job. I have known someone who this happened to, maybe you have, maybe you haven't, but this is the same as with government employment.
I did not not have the right to speak in a completely free manner while at work in private industry. Most companies have an "open door" policy, which allows you to schedule a time to speak your mind without fear of being punished. But you just cant flap off at the lips when ever you want. Once more, same as in the government.
Heck, a few more... in private industry, while at work, my email (even private) can be monitored. Privat industry has the right to visiually recorded their employees while at work, etc.
Sorry, as a government worker I am entitled to all the same rights any private citizen has. In fact, I have a few they don't. Can you figure out which?
Dave said...
This was asked before, but never answered, so I think it's worth asking again:
1) Once the box was opened and it was determined that it only contained currency, what threat remained to the airliner that justified detaining the passenger?
2) Or, in the alternative, what law did the TSA agents suspect ,ay have been violated that would have justified a referral to law enforcement?
Please answer #1, or if the answer is that no threat to airliner security was suspected, then please answer #2 instead?"
Dave, this has been aswered quiet a few times on this blog by many people who work for TSA.
Once the box was opened and its contents determined, if certain conditions were met the TSO should refer to local LEO's.
stewart.baker wrote:
"....He was asked where he works, where he obtained the money and why he was in St. Louis."
Please, Mr. Baker, tell us how any of those questions has anything to do with the safety of an aircraft and why they are any business of the TSA.
Another non-answer:
"Once the box was opened and its contents determined, if certain conditions were met the TSO should refer to local LEO's."
What are "certain conditions?"
Anonymous said...
"Anonymous said...If I think a crime is being comitted, I report it, even if none of you want me to. So if I think someone is about to go overseas without delcaring their large amounts of cash to the proper agency (NOT TSA, I agree with RB about this), I have EVERY right to report it. Guess what, I'll even do this while I'm not working... doesn't that upset you?! :)
You really lost me in your argument, can you please explain it again.
******
Let me explain it to you. The passenger in this incident WAS NOT traveling overseas and well below $10,000. He was not breaking any laws and under no legal obligation to explain why he had cash with him."
************************
And let me explain something to you. If you listen to the tape it is clear the passenger was not answering. Which is his right. And at that point, it is MY right to get a LEO.
I will explain further. At ANY time during the screening process I can ask for a LEO. At any time, and I have do so, and will continue to do so, when in good faith I believe there is something wrong. Do you understand that, cause you seem to have a hard time understanding things. I have every right to contact a LEO when I feel something is wrong. You can argue all you want, but it doesn't change one thing.
The point that I think the TSA keeps missing is that the checkpoint can turn into a blanket fishing expedition for anything that a screener thinks "might" be connected to a crime. Realistically, anything "might" be connected to a crime.
I've seen posts on this blog where screeners have examined the contents of a wallet in great detail, examining business cards, store receipts, etc. What gives the TSA the right to go poking through a passenger's personal papers? Please don't tell me it's because a receipt "might" pertain to illegal activity. As I notee before, anything "might" be connected to illegal activity.
In the case of the person with the gold coins, the screener took off with coins, cash and credit cards. Why would a screener ever need to examine a credit card in such a manner? I'd be concerned that the screener was taking a scan of the card and using it for fraudulent purposes.
Checkpoint personnel need to stick to aviation security.
mikeef said...
"Anonymous said...
1. Uh, yes I am. I'm exactly like a citizen when performing my job: I retain all of my Constitutional rights even when at work, and even if you don't seem to want me to. If I see a crime I report it; just like you have to right to do, so do I.
2. An example: I saw a man hit a woman in the food court of the airport where I work. This food court was before the checkpoint, the public side of the airport. I reported that to the police. Not as a TSA employee, but as a citizen.
3. Another example, I saw a group of men watching porn on their computer on the secure side of the airport past the checkpoint (not kidding). Children were walking around. I reported that too, not as an employee of TSA, but as a citizen.
1. Sure, you can do anything you like. But, as we have discussed in the first 90 posts, there is nothing criminal about carrying large amounts of cash. You have no more reason to report that to a LEO than you would a paperback book. It's none of your business why anyone is carrying a large amount of cash and "He was acting evasive" appears, in this case, to be "He was asking about his rights."
2. Good for you. Seriously. In this case, a crime was committed.
3. Now you're just being a busy-body. Again, please mind your own business. I don't know who you would report it to, but there was no crime being committed. Stop being the morality police."
______________________
As to:
1. Again, if I think there is a crime being committed, I will report it. Sorry if you don't like it. Hope you don't mis-understand what I am saying: I am not saying I report all large amounts of cash to the LEO. I am talking about if there is a crime being committed.
2. Yes, this crime should have been reported.
3. Now your just being dense. No law being broken? What about public obscenity laws? Laws about indecency with children (or related laws - not a lawyer here)? Playing porn in a public place where children are near is illegal. You are foolish to suggest that this was not illegal, and that I was just being a "busy-body" by reporting it. Shame on you.
Sandra said...
"Another non-answer:
"Once the box was opened and its contents determined, if certain conditions were met the TSO should refer to local LEO's."
What are "certain conditions?""
Since you seem to need help, despite the fact that all this was provide many many times before (I didn't write it because of that - the info is here, and didn't want to waste time, but now I see I have to). So let me take you by the hand...
Certain conditions:
1. if the person conducting the check can not determine where the passenger is going (overseas), and the passenger refuses to answer. Keep in mind that when a TSO checks your "bag" they most likely have NOT seen your boarding pass; they do not know if your on an international flight, if such flights leave from that terminal.
2. combine with number 1 above: large amounts of cash. I have checked bags with large amounts of cash. Many bills stacked an mixed together. I can either ask how much is there, or guess, or count it out. It is so much easier to ask. But often you can sort of tell by what bills you see. Stacks of ones, who cares. Stacks of hundreds, depending on how many stacks, might be over $10,000.
3. If the person simply refuses to answer any questions, which they have the right to do.
So Sandra, now that I have taken you by the hand, I hope you can see that was not a non-answer as you claim. All this was provided many times before, you simply chose to ignore it. I tried to be brief in my first post, tried to save space and time. But you need help finding the way, or you are just being difficult. Either way, this is what "certain conditions" means.
Anonymous said...
"If a TSO wants to report a suspected crime to a LEO, fine. But interrogating and detaining a passenger with unwarranted, useless, and slow-motion screening, is unconstitutional, and you ought to get called on it, as in Fofana."
That is not what Fofana ruled. Read the ruling again.
The judge stated that becasue the TSO believed there were no threat items in the property (a mistake, ask any BAO) that they were then only looking for other type of prohibited items, which the judge ruled TSA can not do. Not that TSA can not report those items to a LEO when found, but that TSA can not specifically look for those items if there exist no threat items.
I suspect that this ruling has a good chance to be overturned at a higher court. Screen procedures of Selectees are very clear, and it should have been made clear to this TSO why all things (envelopes) have to be opened. Again, ask any BAO.
"Playing porn in a public place where children are near is illegal."
Please cite the statute in your city/state for this claim.
I forgot to include this in my previous post: I am still waiting for an explanation of why the TSA would possibly refuse to allow a federal judge to review ther "SSI SOP," a document which is presumably provided to thousands of entry-level employees.
___________________________________
Whether they are entry level employees or not, they are TSA employees. Sensitive Security Information goes out to the TSA workforce and that is it. A judge does not work for TSA, do they?!
Of course when more than half of screeners at some airports fail the testing to insure they can do their jobs it really calls into question just how TSA is spending the taxpayers monies.
___________________________________
You always want everyone else to back up their statements. So where are you getting this information that over half of the screeners flunk their tests. Unless you work for TSA you would not have access to this kind of information. And I believe that your accusations are incorrect.
RE: Certain conditions
"Once the box was opened and its contents determined, if certain conditions were met the TSO should refer to local LEO's."
The trouble with your response, Anonymous Person, is that the contents were less than $10,000, plus other small items that were not a threat to aviation.
So, please try again to advise us what those "certain conditions" were that resulted in a LEO being called.
Sandra said...
"RE: Certain conditions
"Once the box was opened and its contents determined, if certain conditions were met the TSO should refer to local LEO's."
The trouble with your response, Anonymous Person, is that the contents were less than $10,000, plus other small items that were not a threat to aviation.
So, please try again to advise us what those "certain conditions" were that resulted in a LEO being called."
---------------------
Why bother? I already answered and specifically state possible reasons. You either havent read them or are ignoring them. I can't really say any more about it, unless you cite something else I post and ask me to explain that further.
But here goes. How does someone know how much cash is there unless you 1. count it, or 2. ask how much (which would require an answer on part of the passenger).
Another of the "conditions" is someone who doesn't answer question, which they have the right not to do. How can I make this any more clear to you, Sandra?
If a TSO ask asomeone a question, that person does not have to answer, but then the TSO has the right to contact a LEO. Its that simple.
What don't you understand?
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/SharpSticks/Majority-of-TSA-workers-at-BWI-Dulles-fail-recertification-test--48913597.html
This, of course, relates only to Baltimore and Dulles, but I would not be at all surprised if similar results are also found at other airports.
"Half of the Transportation Security Administration workers at BWI and an eye-popping 80 percent at Dulles International have failed mandatory tests that certify them to screen passengers, the agency reported. And while less than half of the TSA screeners at BWI flunked the baggage section of the test, a whopping 90 percent didn’t make the grade at Dulles."
an anonymous poster proudly said:
"You always want everyone else to back up their statements. So where are you getting this information that over half of the screeners flunk their tests. Unless you work for TSA you would not have access to this kind of information. And I believe that your accusations are incorrect."
The article detailing the test failure rate was dated 6/24/2009 at www.washingtonexaminer.com There is a commentary about it in the security section of flyertalk.
Maybe it is just good media coverage of factual information. So sorry, read it and weep.
The question just begs to be answered, which anonymous poster are you, and which posts are you laying claim to?
"Why bother? I already answered and specifically state possible reasons. You either havent read them or are ignoring them. I can't really say any more about it, unless you cite something else I post and ask me to explain that further."
Are you the anonymous person who posted:
"3. Now your just being dense. No law being broken? What about public obscenity laws? Laws about indecency with children (or related laws - not a lawyer here)? Playing porn in a public place where children are near is illegal. You are foolish to suggest that this was not illegal, and that I was just being a "busy-body" by reporting it. Shame on you."
I believe the poster was talking about a small sum of money in the possession of a person traveling within the US, and asserting his privacy rights as an American citizen. Why dirty the water with child porn? It has nothing to do with the discussion. Shame on you for fielding such a pathetic rebuttal. You might as well pretend he was a terrorist, a criminal, or a unicorn, for that matter.
Maybe it is just good media coverage of factual information. So sorry, read it and weep.
___________________________________
Or maybe Dunston it is just bad media coverage of exaggerated information. Unless it is TSA themselves reporting the statistics, I don't believe it. So sorry, read it and weep.
A question for a TSA Executive please.
One of your TSO's posted the information quoted below.
Is this what TSO's are taught?
Is it any concern of TSA where a person is going?
Does TSA maintain that the requirement exist to declare currency to the TSO and not the Customs Officer?
How does currency threaten civil aviation?
*********************************
"What are "certain conditions?""
Since you seem to need help, despite the fact that all this was provide many many times before (I didn't write it because of that - the info is here, and didn't want to waste time, but now I see I have to). So let me take you by the hand...
Certain conditions:
1. if the person conducting the check can not determine where the passenger is going (overseas), and the passenger refuses to answer. Keep in mind that when a TSO checks your "bag" they most likely have NOT seen your boarding pass; they do not know if your on an international flight, if such flights leave from that terminal.
2. combine with number 1 above: large amounts of cash. I have checked bags with large amounts of cash. Many bills stacked an mixed together. I can either ask how much is there, or guess, or count it out. It is so much easier to ask. But often you can sort of tell by what bills you see. Stacks of ones, who cares. Stacks of hundreds, depending on how many stacks, might be over $10,000.>
What don't you understand?
July 1, 2009 2:14 PM
........................
I don't understand why TSA is questioning anyone about any amount of currency they might have.
Currency is not a threat to aviation.
TSA does not have any duties in regards to currency control under any law or regulation that I know of.
Please show us where TSA is given responsibility for currency control.
I don't understand why TSA is questioning anyone about any amount of currency they might have.
Currency is not a threat to aviation.
TSA does not have any duties in regards to currency control under any law or regulation that I know of.
Please show us where TSA is given responsibility for currency control.
___________________________________
You see this Bob? You don't have to post this. RB has written this same thing 100 times, maybe more. I enjoy reading and posting on this site, but enough is enough. There must be something wrong with these people.
sadly, Anonymous parroted:
"Or maybe Dunston it is just bad media coverage of exaggerated information. Unless it is TSA themselves reporting the statistics, I don't believe it. So sorry, read it and weep."
No, sorry, it is simply the truth about a badly managed organization, and people who fail their tests. The were flown to another site to retake their test, since 90 percent of them failed. You can bury your head in the sand if you want to, but it doesn't change the truth.
Anonymous said...
Now your just being dense. No law being broken? What about public obscenity laws? Laws about indecency with children (or related laws - not a lawyer here)? Playing porn in a public place where children are near is illegal. You are foolish to suggest that this was not illegal, and that I was just being a "busy-body" by reporting it. Shame on you.
Really? A law was being broken? Which one? Please don't just say "public obscenity laws," since they don't apply to what you are watching on a laptop. Likewise, the proximity of children is not a factor.
Since you are the one claiming that this was illegal, would you be so kind as to point out the actual law that the viewers were breaking? I'll need the actual statute, please. I'm sorry that you may have to do some research, but if you aren't a lawyer, perhaps you shouldn't be commenting on what is/isn't illegal.
Mike
RB said...
(edited for space)
"One of your TSO's posted the information quoted below.
Is this what TSO's are taught?
Is it any concern of TSA where a person is going?
Does TSA maintain that the requirement exist to declare currency to the TSO and not the Customs Officer?"
********************************
"What are "certain conditions?""
Certain conditions:
1. if the person conducting the check can not determine where the passenger is going (overseas), and the passenger refuses to answer. Keep in mind that when a TSO checks your "bag" they most likely have NOT seen your boarding pass; they do not know if your on an international flight, if such flights leave from that terminal.
2. combine with number 1 above: large amounts of cash. I have checked bags with large amounts of cash. Many bills stacked an mixed together. I can either ask how much is there, or guess, or count it out. It is so much easier to ask. But often you can sort of tell by what bills you see. Stacks of ones, who cares. Stacks of hundreds, depending on how many stacks, might be over $10,000.>"
------------------------------
Since I post that original comment, I will respond even if you don't want me to.
As to why a TSO might want to know generally where someone is going - overseas being general, London being specific - yes we really need to know. Why ask someone who is headed to Dallas from Chicago if they have declared their money when this only relates to overseas flights? Stupid question, RB.
If upon checking a passengers bag I find large amounts of cash what should I ask first? How much is there, or are you traveling overseas? If the passenger states they have a domestic destination then obviously the money does not need to be declared, and there is no more concern. So YES, we need to know where someone is going under certain circumstances.
But again, and as I have always written, you do not have to answer.
You said, "Does TSA maintain that the requirement exist to declare currency to the TSO and not the Customs Officer."
Don't be stupid, RB, you do not have to declare you currency to anyone at TSA. You do that with another agency, but you already know that. Your just being difficult.
However, you seem to overlook something quiet big, as can be told from you statement. Passengers do not even need to tell TSA their money is declared UNLESS we find it upon checking your property and ask. If you property goes through the x-ray and is cleared and no one needs to look into your bag (as happens to most of the traveling public) you don't need to say one word about your money even if your going overseas. Get it? If TSA required that you declare you money to a TSO, AS YOU STATED, then we would actively be looking for money, which we are not.
And yes, if a passenger refuses to answer certain questions, we have the right to contact a supervisor to contact the local LEO. And do not twist my words - I have seen you do that too many times to others on this blog. If a TSO ask you small talk you certainly do not have to answer, and no LEO will be involved. If there is a legitimate concern, and a TSO ask a question, and you refuse to answer, yes, a LEO may get involved.
One other thing. If a TSO finds large amounts of currency do you want them to pull it out and start counting, or simply ask you how much you generally have. I say generally for a reason. When I have asked people how much they are carrying, some try to give me a specific amount down to the penny, which is nice of them, but not needed. Asking saves time and is more private.
And yes, we are taught this.
I DO understand that you believe that TSA should not check to see if currency is declared when people travel overseas. Really, I do understand that you think we shouldn't be involved. I may actually agree. But as of right now this is the way it is. It may change one day, I don't know.
mikeef said...
"Anonymous said...
Now your just being dense. No law being broken? What about public obscenity laws? Laws about indecency with children (or related laws - not a lawyer here)? Playing porn in a public place where children are near is illegal. You are foolish to suggest that this was not illegal, and that I was just being a "busy-body" by reporting it. Shame on you.
Really? A law was being broken? Which one? Please don't just say "public obscenity laws," since they don't apply to what you are watching on a laptop. Likewise, the proximity of children is not a factor.
Since you are the one claiming that this was illegal, would you be so kind as to point out the actual law that the viewers were breaking? I'll need the actual statute, please. I'm sorry that you may have to do some research, but if you aren't a lawyer, perhaps you shouldn't be commenting on what is/isn't illegal.
Mike"
Stupid statement yet again! You very well know that public law changes from state to state, and even city to city. Some allow the public viewing of porn, some do not. What is legal here may not be legal there. In some places it is even illegal to mail porn; other it is not.
Why should I post an answer to your question? What good will it do? The men I was talking about were arrested. I later ask one of the arresting officers what happened in that case, and he told me it never went to court, the men pled guilty to a lesser offense. To be honest with you, that all I really need to know.
But if you want to know the laws, look it up yourself. Don't be lazy. What is that old saying about laws and the public.... "ignorance is no excuse".
Anonymous said...
I don't understand why TSA is questioning anyone about any amount of currency they might have.
Currency is not a threat to aviation.
TSA does not have any duties in regards to currency control under any law or regulation that I know of.
Please show us where TSA is given responsibility for currency control.
___________________________________
You see this Bob? You don't have to post this. RB has written this same thing 100 times, maybe more. I enjoy reading and posting on this site, but enough is enough. There must be something wrong with these people.
July 1, 2009 3:38 PM
...............................
If there is anything wrong with "these people" then I say it is with TSA employees who are looking for things other than WE!
I will continue saying that TSA has no role to play in control or movement of currency and that no amount of currency hazards an aircraft.
If you have evidence that disputes this then just post it.
The only thing wrong with me is that I spent 23 years defending the Constitution from foreign enemies while the real threat was from domestic enemies.
Anonymous postulated:
"You see this Bob? You don't have to post this. RB has written this same thing 100 times, maybe more. I enjoy reading and posting on this site, but enough is enough. There must be something wrong with these people."
Having a hard time with other points of view, are you? RB actually has some valid points, while your inarticulate anonymous posts fly in the face of reality.
The Arrogant Anonymous person wrote:
"Stupid statement yet again! You very well know that public law changes from state to state, and even city to city. Some allow the public viewing of porn, some do not. What is legal here may not be legal there. In some places it is even illegal to mail porn; other it is not.
Why should I post an answer to your question? What good will it do? The men I was talking about were arrested. I later ask one of the arresting officers what happened in that case, and he told me it never went to court, the men pled guilty to a lesser offense. To be honest with you, that all I really need to know.
But if you want to know the laws, look it up yourself. Don't be lazy. What is that old saying about laws and the public.... "ignorance is no excuse"."
Now, tell us, please, were these men arrested for having child porn on their computer or "playing porn in a public place where children are near"?
How can we possibly "look it up" ourselves when we do not know what city and state you were in when you allegedly reported this crime?
I don't understand what practical purpose a TSO has for asking if a passenger has declared money over $10,000 if traveling overseas.
TSO: "I see over $10,000 and I notice from your BP you are traveling overseas. Have you declared this to Customs?"
Passenger:
Option 1
"Yes"
What would a TSO's response be and how has security been achieved? How would a TSO know if the passenger was telling the truth?
Option 2
"No, not yet. I will declare it before I depart"
Again, what would the TSO's response be and how has the conversation achieved security?
Option 3
"I don't have to answer that question"
TSO calls LEO
Passenger to LEO:
"I've already declared it"
"I plan to declare it"
"That is between myself and Customs, if you believe I may be about to commit a crime, go talk to Customs"
What could the LEO do? At the time of talking to the LEO, no crime has been committed. LEO cannot detain passenger. The most LEO could do is call Customs, but the passenger can declare at any time prior to leaving.
Where is security enhanced?
Since I post that original comment, I will respond even if you don't want me to.
And yes, we are taught this.
I DO understand that you believe that TSA should not check to see if currency is declared when people travel overseas. Really, I do understand that you think we shouldn't be involved. I may actually agree. But as of right now this is the way it is. It may change one day, I don't know.
July 1, 2009 4:28 PM
...................
I appreciate your remarks Oh Anonymous One. I tried to retain your remarks but ran out of space. Sorry.
I find it interesting that you are taught to take notice of currency even though it presents no danger to aviation, is perfectly legal in all amounts and TSA has no reason to concern itself with a persons wealth.
I also suggest that to clear a passenger into the secure area requires no knowledge of where a person is going. The persons destination has no bearing on what they might have in their baggage, checked or carry-on. Either they have WEI or they do not.
If you find a large amount of cash then no question about its source, destination or amount is needed since we have already determined that currency presents no threat to aviation and there is no requirement to declare currency at this point. You should not pull it out or ask questions about this since it has no impact on aircraft safety.
I maintain that TSA has stuck its collective nose into matters that are none of its business.
If I am going overseas then it is my responsibility to declare over $10,000 to the proper authorities. If I am just traveling within the States then it is no ones business why or how much cash I might have.
I fault your superiors for this issue. They are wrong to focus on this point and I think in the end things like this cause great harm to the reputation of TSO's and the current lack of respect you folks get from the public.
The public does not trust TSA to conduct proper screenings and things like the Bierfeldt incident only reinforces this distrust.
The Operational Directive that classified currency of certain amounts as an item of contraband was in my opinion an ignorant action. It should be rescinded tomorrow if that has not already happened.
The fact that these types of issues make a mockery of an Administrative Search will likely come back to impair the ability of TSA to conduct thorough screenings at some point in the future.
The traveling public is pushing back on this and other things TSA does that have little or no impact on keeping air travel safe. We are not criminals and resent being treated as such by low level employees of the government.
Groups supporting civil liberties have taken notice, the courts are taking notice and Congress is taking notice of TSA's missteps.
TSA has not had an effective leader since President Obama took office and it is really starting to show. I hope a person from outside of TSA is chosen to lead the agency. Some fresh perspective is sorely needed.
Sometimes when digging a hole it is wise to know when to put the shovel down. TSA has not learned this fact yet.
RB said:
"Sometimes when digging a hole it is wise to know when to put the shovel down. TSA has not learned this fact yet."
Dig we must...
Perhaps if they dig far and wide enough TSA can justify it's actions, and something suspicious will fall in. Or something to that effect, as nothing of a terrorist nature has fallen into the trap, so far. It is easier to dig than to build, to suspect than to recognize bad intent. Developing effective security policy that coincides with protecting the rights of innocent travelers is apparently beyond TSA's interest or capability.
What could the LEO do? At the time of talking to the LEO, no crime has been committed. LEO cannot detain passenger. The most LEO could do is call Customs, but the passenger can declare at any time prior to leaving.
Dunstan said...
RB said:
"Sometimes when digging a hole it is wise to know when to put the shovel down. TSA has not learned this fact yet."
Dig we must...
Perhaps if they dig far and wide enough TSA can justify it's actions, and something suspicious will fall in. Or something to that effect, as nothing of a terrorist nature has fallen into the trap, so far. It is easier to dig than to build, to suspect than to recognize bad intent. Developing effective security policy that coincides with protecting the rights of innocent travelers is apparently beyond TSA's interest or capability.
July 2, 2009 9:22 AM
Exactly, and this demonstrates why TSA leadership has failed so miserably.
TSA leadership has failed their country, the public and their employees.
Groups supporting civil liberties have taken notice, the courts are taking notice and Congress is taking notice of TSA's missteps.
...........................
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204556804574261940842372518.html
"The Transportation Security Administration has moved beyond just checking for weapons and explosives. It’s now training airport screeners to spot anything suspicious, and then honoring them when searches lead to arrests for crimes like drug possession and credit-card fraud.
But two court cases in the past month question whether TSA searches—which the agency says have broadened to allow screeners to use more judgment—have been going too far."
And the snowball is growing!
No, sorry, it is simply the truth about a badly managed organization, and people who fail their tests. The were flown to another site to retake their test, since 90 percent of them failed. You can bury your head in the sand if you want to, but it doesn't change the truth.
___________________________________
Where is this information from? 90% you say. Show me. Flown to a different site? Really. Where does it say that?
Funny, just a little bit of my opinion. TSA would not pay to fly someone somewhere who just flunked a test to retest them. DUMB
Another nail in the TSA coffin.
"DHS IG raps TSA for its anti-GA campaign"
http://www.ainonline.com/news/single-news-page/article/dhs-ig-raps-tsa-for-its-anti-ga-campaign/
"Where is this information from? 90% you say. Show me. Flown to a different site? Really. Where does it say that?
Funny, just a little bit of my opinion. TSA would not pay to fly someone somewhere who just flunked a test to retest them. DUMB"
From the article to which this post in an oblique reference:
"...And while less than half of the TSA screeners at BWI flunked the baggage section of the test, a whopping 90 percent didn’t make the grade at Dulles.....
One screener reportedly failed the body pat-down section of the test in Houston - even though she found all the items that would have triggered a security alarm – but passed after retaking the test and doing the same thing at BWI the next day. "If I failed because they do things differently at other airports, that's not right. Everybody needs to be doing the same thing," she said."
Now, how did she get to BWI - who knows?
Suspect that the reason no terrorist has been caught by TSA is that the hysterical laughter at the checkpoint would be a dead giveaway.
Bob said...
Randy Said… Hey Bob - It's been posted here that a LEO is called if illegal drugs are suspected. Do you guys get training on what illegal drugs look like either to the naked eye or on an xray image? If not, what criteria do you use in deciding to call in a LEO? If so, do you know the rationale for training you in conducting searches that go beyond the scope of TSA's mandate to screen for weapons, explosives, and similar threats to aviation safety. 7/1/09
--------------------
Hi Randy. Our officers are not looking for illegal drugs, so they are not trained on identifying narcotics. When drugs are found, it is always because we were looking for something else. Here is an example: A passenger’s bag is being searched because our officer spotted a knife on the x-ray screen. While searching the bag for the knife, our TSO comes across a baggie of a leafy green substance with rolling papers. They weren’t looking for marijuana, but they found it and reported it.
As far as pills are concerned, about the only time illegal pills are found is when a LEO becomes involved in a search (for a variety of different reasons not related to drugs) and recognizes the pills. Of course, LEOs are trained to identify illegal drugs.
Thanks for the answer Bob.
So, without training, and let's for the moment leave the rolling papers out of the equation, why would a TSA screener be suspicious of something that could be many things? Presuming that the pax belongings screen clear for things banned by TSA (the "knife" was not found), what gives the screener the authority to retain possession of the belongings until the LEO arrives? Why can't I just "voluntarily" surrender the item same as I am permitted to surrender a half full 4.5 ounce net weight tube of toothpaste or my cheap corkscrew (happened in PHL).
Sandra said...
"The Arrogant Anonymous person wrote"
Now I'm "Arrogant Anonymous"? Wow, I must really be getting to you. :) What makes me "Arrogant", I wonder? That I don't agree with you?
Again, don't be lazy Sandra. Look it up yourself. You have access to the internet.
We all talk about our freedoms and rights on this blog, yet want to accept no responsibilities that comes with those freedoms. Be responsible for yourself. Stop demanding that people do things for you for once.
Anyways, I don't know when or if this will be post, but happy 4th of July to you, Sandra!!!
So, without training, and let's for the moment leave the rolling papers out of the equation, why would a TSA screener be suspicious of something that could be many things?
.........................
The better question is how can a TSO suspect something of being illegal if they have no training to identify the article?
RB said...
(edited, of course)
"I appreciate your remarks Oh Anonymous One. I tried to retain your remarks but ran out of space. Sorry.
I find it interesting that you are taught to take notice of currency even though it presents no danger to aviation, is perfectly legal in all amounts and TSA has no reason to concern itself with a persons wealth.
I also suggest that to clear a passenger into the secure area requires no knowledge of where a person is going. The persons destination has no bearing on what they might have in their baggage, checked or carry-on. Either they have WEI or they do not.
If you find a large amount of cash then no question about its source, destination or amount is needed since we have already determined that currency presents no threat to aviation and there is no requirement to declare currency at this point. You should not pull it out or ask questions about this since it has no impact on aircraft safety.
Actually, I don't think you do appreciate my comments, RB! And I did shed a tear over the thought of that.
But to lie and say TSA is concerned about a person's wealth! You are assuming that the currency someone carries on them is theirs. Bad assumption. Someone could have very large amounts of money on them and it have nothing at all to do with their personal wealth. You make alot of bad assumptions, RB!
And to be honest, it doesn't really matter to me what you find interesting.
And I will tell you something else that I haven't seen on this blog, but is related to the topic at hand:
To be clear - because you don't seem to understand it - TSA does not ask or want anyone to declare their moneies to TSA. TSA simply checks to see if the money WAS declared when traveling overseas. We do not actively search for money, meaning, if we see something on the x-ray that might be money (something you actually CAN NOT do - people with x-ray experience will understand this - if money comes through on the x-ray you cant tell what is is) we do not check for it. We search bags for other items and if we find it, then we go from there. Which brings me to...
TSA ALSO does the same with fire-arms. You are allowed to travel with fire-arms in your checked luggage. Must be in a hard-sided, locked case. The weapon can not be loaded. AND the weapon MUST be DECLARED with the airline - NOT declared with TSA. This is per FAA regulation.
However, we do not do this with every fire-arm. If for some reason we have to go INTO a case carrying a fire-arm (and for the most part the CTX will clear most weapons without requiring a search of the case) we have to check to see if it was declared with the airline. There should actually be a declaration form left with the weapon. And yes, sometimes we find these weapons without proper declaration.
So currency is not the only thing we check to find proper declaration. What do you think about that, RB?
And by the way, I am not convinced the tangible transfer of hard cash out of our country does not in some ways, at some times, present a threat to our country. I believe such transfers may indirectly present a threat to our aviation infrastructure. So your comment that "we have already determined that currency presents no threat to aviation", is not true. I am a participant of this blog, and I don't agree with that statement, so who is the "we" you are talking about?
RB said...
"The only thing wrong with me is that I spent 23 years defending the Constitution from foreign enemies while the real threat was from domestic enemies."
-----------------------------
Really? What about my 20+ years service to this country? And now I have come to TSA to continue to defend this country.
Are you really going to argue that if I or anyone else doesn't agree with your understanding of the Constitution, then there is something wrong with us?
I thought you said you defended the constitution? Did not your defense of the constitution mean that I as a citizen of the country have the right to disagree with you, and actually expect and want certain things from this country that you might not agree with?
What if what TSA does is what I honestly believe needs to be done to defend our country and constitution? Do I not have the right to fight for that? Can I not contact memembers of Congress, the President, and anyone else who will listen and tell them that I think TSA should continue to do what it has been doing?
Or does your understanding of our constitutional rights mean only some people know best, and only they should decide? Is that democracy?
To say that those who exercise their constitutional rights, by working at, and supporting TSA are, what did you say, "domestic enemies", means TO ME you really don't support our constitution.
When public discourse, and public action are by some considered and stated as terrorist activities against the state, then those who believe so do not really believe in democracy. Don't believe me? I know your old enough to know, but maybe you should study better the history of nations like Nazi Germany, the former Soviet Union, China...
When people people say, "if you don't agree as I do, then your an enemy of the state", that leads down the paty of tyranny. Is this what you want?
If you bring up your service to your country, don't be surprised when those who work for TSA bring up theirs. TSA is FILLED with those who served our country, and served it well.
But I guess in your opinion, your opinion is the only one that matters. Yet you somehow claim to support our constitution and our democracy.
Dunstan said..
"I believe the poster was talking about a small sum of money in the possession of a person traveling within the US, and asserting his privacy rights as an American citizen. Why dirty the water with child porn? It has nothing to do with the discussion. Shame on you for fielding such a pathetic rebuttal. You might as well pretend he was a terrorist, a criminal, or a unicorn, for that matter."
Maybe you should read the entire post before you make yourself look foolish? I never mentioned child porn. I think you were the first one to do so. Again, read before you post.
Originally, we were talking about the idea that I have the right to report any crime I believe is taking place. That was it, nothing else. So what you believe is wrong.
If you go back and read what was post, you will see that I brought it up because it actually happened. It was not a "pretend". I brought it up to highlight the idea that I have the right to report to the police any crime I believe is being committed. If I think someone is traveling overseas without delcaring their money, I have the right to report it. I am not making the argument as a TSA employee, but as a citizen.
Please don't post without fully reading what is being discussed. It waste all our time, and takes up space.
To be clear - because you don't seem to understand it - TSA does not ask or want anyone to declare their moneies to TSA. TSA simply checks to see if the money WAS declared when traveling overseas.
..........................
FinCen Form 105 is file with the Customs Officer at the point of departure.
At your airport where is this person located?
...........................
We search bags for other items and if we find it, then we go from there. Which brings me to...
TSA ALSO does the same with fire-arms. You are allowed to travel with fire-arms in your checked luggage. Must be in a hard-sided, locked case. The weapon can not be loaded. AND the weapon MUST be DECLARED with the airline - NOT declared with TSA.
...........................
I don't think anyone has argued how to transport weapons. Anyone doing so should know that certain procedures have to be met. However, Cash and Weapons are two seperate things, and cash is a legal item.
.......................
And by the way, I am not convinced the tangible transfer of hard cash out of our country does not in some ways, at some times, present a threat to our country. I believe such transfers may indirectly present a threat to our aviation infrastructure.
.........................
Control of cash exceeds TSA's scope of mission. Now if you want to get into that business then change jobs.
But I guess in your opinion, your opinion is the only one that matters. Yet you somehow claim to support our constitution and our democracy.
July 3, 2009 9:21 PM
...................
So I have no right to my opinion? I must agree with TSA?
TSA mirrors actions of some events in the 1930's until destroyed in the 1940's by Allied Forces.
At the hands of TSA this country has devolved into a Papers or No Travel country.
Anoymous said
"Maybe you should read the entire post before you make yourself look foolish? I never mentioned child porn. I think you were the first one to do so. Again, read before you post."
Yes your post mentioned someone watching porn with children nearby.
"Playing porn in a public place where children are near is illegal."
I did sort of run the two sentences together.
"If you go back and read what was post, you will see that I brought it up because it actually happened. It was not a "pretend". I brought it up to highlight the idea that I have the right to report to the police any crime I believe is being committed. If I think someone is traveling overseas without delcaring their money, I have the right to report it. I am not making the argument as a TSA employee, but as a citizen."
Only for so long as there are no repercussions for falsely accusing someone of a crime. Do it often enough, and I would think that TSA would have grounds to terminate you. TSA employees rank themselves near the bottom of government agencies in such areas as job satisfaction for a very good reason. I would not be surprised if your fellow TSOs had good reason to have issues with you.
Anonynmous said:
"Please don't post without fully reading what is being discussed. It waste all our time, and takes up space."
You seem to waste a lot of "space"... Your posts are arduous and weak.
And, you apparently are a moderator too, deciding who has the right to post, and what they post and providing critical editorial commentary as well? Are you the same anonynmous that demanded that Bob do something about RB's posts? How pathetic and cowardly.
From the post is this very telling statement:
"As a general rule, passengers are required to cooperate with the screening process. Cooperation may involve answering questions about their property. A passenger who refuses to answer questions may be referred to appropriate authorities for further inquiry."
Since when did anyone relinquish their Constitutional right to privacy and to unreasonable search and seizure. I don't recall signing away my rights. If I'm carrying a large amount of cash, how does that make me a concern for TSA? It's not a threat to passenger safety so once TSA determines it's legal to have on the plane, they no longer have a right to "detain" anyone. This isn't Nazi Germany after all.
@Bob: "Our officers are not looking for illegal drugs, so they are not trained on identifying narcotics. When drugs are found, it is always because we were looking for something else. Here is an example: A passenger’s bag is being searched because our officer spotted a knife on the x-ray screen. While searching the bag for the knife, our TSO comes across a baggie of a leafy green substance with rolling papers. They weren’t looking for marijuana, but they found it and reported it."
So if they are not trained to identify narcotics, how could they possibly know that they found marijuana? Perhaps I like to travel with small baggies of cut herbs to liven up restaurant food.
Arrogant Anonymous poster wrote:
"Again, don't be lazy Sandra. Look it up yourself. You have access to the internet."
in response to my post:
"Now, tell us, please, were these men arrested for having child porn on their computer or "playing porn in a public place where children are near"?
How can we possibly "look it up" ourselves when we do not know what city and state you were in when you allegedly reported this crime?
Please learn to READ and COMPREHEND.
Laws vary from state to state and city to city. Since you failed to advise us of what city and state you were in when you allegedly reported these men, we must now assume that you are not being totally truthful.
Bob at TSA wrote (emphasis added):
"Hi Randy. Our officers are not looking for illegal drugs, so they are not trained on identifying narcotics. When drugs are found, it is always because we were looking for something else. Here is an example: A passenger’s bag is being searched because our officer spotted a knife on the x-ray screen. While searching the bag for the knife, our TSO comes across a baggie of a leafy green substance with rolling papers. They weren’t looking for marijuana, but they found it and reported it."
Bob, your "officers" (who are not officers) don't "find drugs", they find something that looks to them like it might be a substance that some people are prohibited by law from possessing in some circumstances. In order to determine if the substance one of your bag checkers finds during his search for weapons, explosives, and incendiaries is something that the person he is searching is prohibited from possessing at that time in that location, he will need to stop searching for dangerous items, contact a law enforcement officer, and explain his findings and suspicions. In such cases, wouldn't we all be safer if your staff gave us the benefit of the doubt (about things that might indicate wrongdoing, but might not) once they determine that our belongings are not weapons, explosives, or incendiaries, and moved on to searching more people for dangerous items?
Also, once your staff have completed their search for dangerous items, if they found something that they suspect indicates wrongdoing and have decided to contact law enforcement, is the person they are searching free to go -- either in the direction he was headed when your staff stopped him, or in reverse, toward the airport exit?
--
Phil
Add your own questions at TSAFAQ.net
Anonynmous said:
"Please don't post without fully reading what is being discussed. It waste all our time, and takes up space."
You seem to waste a lot of "space"... Your posts are arduous and weak.
And, you apparently are a moderator too, deciding who has the right to post, and what they post and providing critical editorial commentary as well? Are you the same anonynmous that demanded that Bob do something about RB's posts? How pathetic and cowardly."
--------------------------
And you apparently are not that smart.
I am not a moderator.
Nor did I demand that Bob do something about RB post. RB can post whatever he wants, and look silly the entire time.
And I am not allowed to state my opinion? To state that people who do post should at least attempt to read the statements they are commenting on, so they don't look stupid, as did the person who commented on my post. No one has to follow my advice, but I have every right to give it.
And with that being said, I'll state again what apparently touched a nerve with you: I suggest if you want to comment on what someone wrote, please read what they said, so that your comments actually make sense.
Dunstan said...
"Anoymous said
"Maybe you should read the entire post before you make yourself look foolish? I never mentioned child porn. I think you were the first one to do so. Again, read before you post."
Yes your post mentioned someone watching porn with children nearby.
"Playing porn in a public place where children are near is illegal."
I did sort of run the two sentences together.
"If you go back and read what was post, you will see that I brought it up because it actually happened. It was not a "pretend". I brought it up to highlight the idea that I have the right to report to the police any crime I believe is being committed. If I think someone is traveling overseas without delcaring their money, I have the right to report it. I am not making the argument as a TSA employee, but as a citizen."
Only for so long as there are no repercussions for falsely accusing someone of a crime. Do it often enough, and I would think that TSA would have grounds to terminate you. TSA employees rank themselves near the bottom of government agencies in such areas as job satisfaction for a very good reason. I would not be surprised if your fellow TSOs had good reason to have issues with you."
--------------------------
I am glad we determined that you misquoted me. It happens, everyone makes mistakes. You, me, everyone. Except Trollkiller! He's perfect. :)
However, just to let you know, I do not go around pointing fingers all the time, or actually that often at all. So you do not need to worry that I will lose my job or that I have few friends at work. Now that that worry is off your mind, you can breath easier and sleep better at night.
Anyways, no harm done. Honest discussion is always good, and to some extent, constructive. And I do applaud you for your post.
RB said...
(slighly edited...)
"To be clear - because you don't seem to understand it - TSA does not ask or want anyone to declare their moneies to TSA. TSA simply checks to see if the money WAS declared when traveling overseas.
..........................
FinCen Form 105 is file with the Customs Officer at the point of departure.
At your airport where is this person located?
................................
As if it matters, but to answer your question, the office that handles this is located before the checkpoint. My airport has multiple terminals, but only one serves international flights. This also means at the other terminals we NEVER ask if they have declared their money, cause there is no need.
But still, you never have to declare your currency with TSA.
____________________
TSA ALSO does the same with fire-arms. You are allowed to travel with fire-arms in your checked luggage. Must be in a hard-sided, locked case. The weapon can not be loaded. AND the weapon MUST be DECLARED with the airline - NOT declared with TSA.
...........................
I don't think anyone has argued how to transport weapons. Anyone doing so should know that certain procedures have to be met. However, Cash and Weapons are two seperate things, and cash is a legal item.
.......................
Fire-arms are legal too. But you miss the point.
A passenger does not delcare their fire-arm with TSA, but with the air-line. Just like you do not delcare your monies with TSA but the propery government agency. TSA is tasked with checking that VARIOUS items are declared before flight
_____________________________
And by the way, I am not convinced the tangible transfer of hard cash out of our country does not in some ways, at some times, present a threat to our country. I believe such transfers may indirectly present a threat to our aviation infrastructure.
.........................
Control of cash exceeds TSA's scope of mission. Now if you want to get into that business then change jobs.
..........................
To which I say prove to me that the international flow of currency does not in some way present a threat to nations and indirectly to aviation security.
You didn't respon to what I wrote, simply state it was beyond TSA's scope, so I had to now ask you specifically. Prove its not threat, because you keep claiming its not.
Anonymous blurted:
"And you apparently are not that smart.
I am not a moderator. "
And apparently you don't comprehend sarcasm...
Anonymous said:
"However, just to let you know, I do not go around pointing fingers all the time, or actually that often at all."
You probably know what is said about pointing fingers.
"So you do not need to worry that I will lose my job or that I have few friends at work. Now that that worry is off your mind, you can breath easier and sleep better at night."
It is certainly true I won't lose a moment's sleep over you or your opinion. I'm sure the feeling is mutual.
To which I say prove to me that the international flow of currency does not in some way present a threat to nations and indirectly to aviation security.
Well, my cousin's in-laws are small-town farmers in rural Mexico. No nearby access to ATM machines. They needed to give the father some money to buy new farming equipment and carried $75,000 in cash with them. I can assure you, the money did not go to international terrorist bogeymen or drug cartels.
I'm going to Europe next year on holiday and visit relatives. I'm going to be carrying a rather substantial amount of currency with me. And, I can assure you, I am not going to be funding terrorists, or neo-nazi's, or IRA, or Hezbollah, or Hamas, or any other violence-driven group with this money. I can bet most people don't carry cash for such groups. That's what offshore accounts are for.
Anonymous said...
"Anonymous blurted:
"And you apparently are not that smart.
I am not a moderator. "
And apparently you don't comprehend sarcasm..."
----------------------------
Yeah, you used scarcasm, and I chose to answer your comments in a pretty dry and straight forward manner. Sorry if you didn't like it, or understand it.
However, it bares to repeat what you stated:
"And, you apparently are a moderator too ... are you the same anonynmous that demanded that Bob do something about RB's posts? How pathetic and cowardly."
Since you seemed to miss what I wrote, I will post again:
"Nor did I demand that Bob do something about RB post. RB can post whatever he wants, and look silly the entire time."
No I have never attempted to moderate this blog. Though I do not agree with what many on this blog say, I have never asked the blog staff to limit or not post someones comments.
However, that does not mean I have to respect what someone says. If what they say is flawed, based upon personal bias, or bad assumptions, or inaccurate because of laziness, and they are highly critical of others, I believe I have the right to tell them what I think. Its about freedom of speech, even if you don't like it.
If you have a problem with that, too bad. But I wouldn't think of asking anyone NOT to post yours or anyones comments.
Your agents are totally out of line at some airports. They should have special training on human relations and make each passenger feel proud to have TSA working for them at the airport to protect them. Instead they are individuals that want to flaunt their power and control over anybody they so desire.
I was traveling out of Burbank airport in April, 2009 with my mother, who is 93 years old, and her caregiver. I was carrying on an ice chest with special food for my mom to eat, which is allowed according to your policy and information posted on your website. Not only would your officers not allow me to take the food on board, but they falsely accused me of battery and placed a citizen’s arrest on me. I was cuffed, hauled off to the Burbank jail, booked and held for over 6 hours. Mind you I am a 57-year old grandmother of 5, a member and temple recommend holder of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the CFO for The Media Cafe, and the primary care-giver for my 93-year old mother.
What do you have to say about that?
Anon said....
"To which I say prove to me that the international flow of currency does not in some way present a threat to nations and indirectly to aviation security."
............................
Anon, I don't think anyone is saying that currency cannot be used to fund operations that could impact aviation security.
What I am saying is that no amount of cash that a person carries onto an airplane presents an immediate danger to aviation security.
TSA us charged with keeping WEI and other prohibited items from flying. Thats it, nothing more.
Post a Comment