TSA detention for carring cash

I don't understand, Richard. If I pay cash for airplane fuel, and a police officer asks me why I'm carrying so much cash, and I tell him "to pay for airplane fuel", and he doesn't like that answer, can he detain me?
Sure. The reasonable and articulate suspicion standard is really low. That said, you can't generally detain someone for a long time, so in order to keep you, they'd have to show PC and arrest you. Which they won't be able to do if you're just carrying some cash and there's nothing circumstantial going on.

Take me downtown for more questioning? Keep me from leaving until the FBI or the DEA shows up to do a further search? From Mari's post, it sounds like that's what happened.
They can probably detain you until the FBI show up. I don't know about taking you downtown.

And the initial poster's story was similar. The guy had cash on him. A relatively small amount, in the big scheme of things. He WAS detained, and threatened with being taken to the police if he didn't give them the answers they wanted to hear.
Like I said, the standards for detention are pretty minimal. However, once they determined that there wasn't anything going on, they couldn't detain him. And he certainly isn't obligated to tell them _anything_, so I'm glad he didn't.

I am trying to understand the policies we're complaining about... explain!
 
As best I know, TSOs can't detain people. Which is why they have police standing around there...TSOs are civilians like you and me. They don't have arrest powers.

Ah, but they CAN effectively detain you. I have heard, a couple of times, TSA screeners saying "do you want to fly today" or "do you want to make your flight because I can be sure you don't".

The TSA policy is "no one may leave once we start screening - even to the 'unsecure' area - until the screening process is complete". So, you can refuse to answer the questions, the screening process never completes, and you are NOT free to either make your flight NOR leave the screening area. According to the TSA, they decide when screening is done. So, you are, effectively, detained until the TSA lets you go. Now, as a practical matter, you can demand a supervisor and law enforcement officer. Doing so is at your peril because it becomes your word against theirs. And since the are "The Man", they are automitically deemed to be more credible.

They took exception at BWI to an aviation headset and aviation handheld radio one time when I was going to retrieve the plane from annual. I got the snarky "do you want to make your flight" speech when I asked them not to rip the lining in my suitcase trying to open it (I offered to show them, and the guy got real defensive and snarky stating that he knew how to open it). He then proceeded to tear the lining because he really didn't know how to open it. I demanded a supervisor who appeared and refused to give me his name, her name, or the name of her supe. She even claimed not to know who the FSD was for BWI. I wrote complaint letters to the TSA, the local FSD (a little research is a good thing), and the airport manager. None of them even bothered to send a cockroach letter. The result of my calling the supe was a 15+ minute delay while I was "punished" by being sent for secondary inspection, and all the info from my boarding pass was copied down (I refused to let them take the address from my DL). Fortunately, I was 2 hours early for my flight (tried to get the earlier one, but nada thanks to these clowns).

The problem is that there is no accountability. There is no punishment for a law enforcement officer (in many places) that abuses that "reasonable cause" exemption. There is no accountability for TSA screeners that abuse their positions. There is little accountability for gate agents or flight crew that abuse their authority in calling something a "security" issue when it's not (note: I know the call is tough sometimes, but there ARE cases where crew/agents have abused the authority, even one who tried to confiscate a camera - calling it a 'security' issue - that someone was using to take pictures of their friends going on vacation). Instead, each may or may not be counseled then complimented for trying very hard to stop a potential terrorist (see "zero tolerance" policy thread in Spin Zone).
 
I guess I missed that. Where was it stated that an airport police officer approved the detention? I thought TSOs were detaining him. They threatened to bring him to the police until the plain clothes fella showed up, or did I miss something?

Best,

Dave

My interpretation of the audio voices and sounds, plus information released in a short statement on the tsa blog.
 
Ah, but they CAN effectively detain you. I have heard, a couple of times, TSA screeners saying "do you want to fly today" or "do you want to make your flight because I can be sure you don't".
...
That's the power trip they tell each other that you can see in the barely comprehensible comments on the YouTube video.

I would say, "F you Cletus, I'll drive or fly myself." You have to be careful not to use big words, long sentences, sarcasm or comments expecting obvious implications lest they claim you made a threat.
 
Keep in mind that the story I told happened years ago before the TSA was a glimmer in anyone's eye. At that time, law enforcement was more about smuggling drugs than it was about terrorists.
 
Threatening the passenger with "you won't make your flight" isn't a way to defuse
the situation.
 
Threatening the passenger with "you won't make your flight" isn't a way to defuse
the situation.

No, it won't. But it's said every day by the TSA as a means of showing their authority over you. And it's very effective when you have hundreds of dollars at stake (non-refundable/non-changable tickets that carry huge penalties).
 
If they're going to coerce people into answering their questions, then there needs to be a law that prevents the answers from being used in court against the passenger. Otherwise the right to not incriminate oneself is severely compomised.

Martha Stewart went to prison for lying to the investigators, not for insider trading. If she had just declined to answer she might not have had to spend time in the slammer.
 
Ah, but they CAN effectively detain you. I have heard, a couple of times, TSA screeners saying "do you want to fly today" or "do you want to make your flight because I can be sure you don't".

The TSA policy is "no one may leave once we start screening - even to the 'unsecure' area - until the screening process is complete".
Agreed. TSOs can't detain you legally, but practically speaking, it happens all the time, especially because people don't speak up.

I'd like to see the "no leaving until finished screening" issue tested in court. Don't see how that could be legal.

-Felix
 
Ah, but they CAN effectively detain you. I have heard, a couple of times, TSA screeners saying "do you want to fly today" or "do you want to make your flight because I can be sure you don't".

The TSA policy is "no one may leave once we start screening - even to the 'unsecure' area - until the screening process is complete". So, you can refuse to answer the questions, the screening process never completes, and you are NOT free to either make your flight NOR leave the screening area. According to the TSA, they decide when screening is done. So, you are, effectively, detained until the TSA lets you go. Now, as a practical matter, you can demand a supervisor and law enforcement officer. Doing so is at your peril because it becomes your word against theirs. And since the are "The Man", they are automitically deemed to be more credible.

They took exception at BWI to an aviation headset and aviation handheld radio one time when I was going to retrieve the plane from annual. I got the snarky "do you want to make your flight" speech when I asked them not to rip the lining in my suitcase trying to open it (I offered to show them, and the guy got real defensive and snarky stating that he knew how to open it). He then proceeded to tear the lining because he really didn't know how to open it. I demanded a supervisor who appeared and refused to give me his name, her name, or the name of her supe. She even claimed not to know who the FSD was for BWI. I wrote complaint letters to the TSA, the local FSD (a little research is a good thing), and the airport manager. None of them even bothered to send a cockroach letter. The result of my calling the supe was a 15+ minute delay while I was "punished" by being sent for secondary inspection, and all the info from my boarding pass was copied down (I refused to let them take the address from my DL). Fortunately, I was 2 hours early for my flight (tried to get the earlier one, but nada thanks to these clowns).

The problem is that there is no accountability. There is no punishment for a law enforcement officer (in many places) that abuses that "reasonable cause" exemption. There is no accountability for TSA screeners that abuse their positions. There is little accountability for gate agents or flight crew that abuse their authority in calling something a "security" issue when it's not (note: I know the call is tough sometimes, but there ARE cases where crew/agents have abused the authority, even one who tried to confiscate a camera - calling it a 'security' issue - that someone was using to take pictures of their friends going on vacation). Instead, each may or may not be counseled then complimented for trying very hard to stop a potential terrorist (see "zero tolerance" policy thread in Spin Zone).

+1e50

BTW, Spiff, is that you? :crazy:

Cheers,

-Andrew
 
Agreed. TSOs can't detain you legally, but practically speaking, it happens all the time, especially because people don't speak up.

I'd like to see the "no leaving until finished screening" issue tested in court. Don't see how that could be legal.
...

I don't see how it can be legal, either but I've heard it before. I'd like to think when Cletus says, "Do you want to fly today?" I get to tell him to shove it, (I CAN fly today!) and leave.

It turns out that you can be arrested at the airport even if you don't get near the gate, see the MIT engineering student girl who was arrested for having a circuit board with an LED sign on her sweatshirt. As I recall she even left school after that. :mad:

http://tv.boingboing.net/2008/09/19/star-simpson-once-mi.html
 
...
It turns out that you can be arrested at the airport even if you don't get near the gate, see the MIT engineering student girl who was arrested for having a circuit board with an LED sign on her sweatshirt. As I recall she even left school after that. :mad:

http://tv.boingboing.net/2008/09/19/star-simpson-once-mi.html

Do you really think an arrest in that situation is unreasonable? Keep in mind that the standard for arrest is probable cause, defined as "facts and circumstances within an arresting officer's knowledge are sufficient to warrant a person of reasonable caution to believe that an offense has been or is being committed by the person about to be arrested."

Walk into an airport with a circuit board strapped on your backpack or whatever it was, and I guarantee that any reasonable person will believe that there's a crime in progress.

The ultimate determination, i.e., ends justifying the means, is wholly irrelevant to whether probable cause exists. In other words, if you're not comitting a crime doesn't mean there isn't p.c., and if you are that doesn't mean there is p.c.
 
Uhh, WTF?

Keep in mind that if there's not p.c. there, then there's definitely reasonable suspicion which would justify at least a "stop & question." If I remember correctly, she was stopped, became unruly, and was then arrested. So, in actuality, the arrest wasn't for carrying something looking like a bomb - it was for being a PITA. Like it or not, you don't get to be a PITA in public.

At any rate, if you walk into an airport with a circuit board and a bunch of flashing lights, it's not what you or I think - it's whether it's reasonable, for a reasonable (i.e., average) person, to think there's a crime in progress. In this case, I'd say that qualifies as a "hoax device." If nothing else, it qualifies as deliberate obstruction of justice, interference with gov't operations, or whatever term Mass. uses.
 
Last edited:
Do you really think an arrest in that situation is unreasonable? Keep in mind that the standard for arrest is probable cause, defined as "facts and circumstances within an arresting officer's knowledge are sufficient to warrant a person of reasonable caution to believe that an offense has been or is being committed by the person about to be arrested."

Walk into an airport with a circuit board strapped on your backpack or whatever it was, and I guarantee that any reasonable person will believe that there's a crime in progress.

The ultimate determination, i.e., ends justifying the means, is wholly irrelevant to whether probable cause exists. In other words, if you're not comitting a crime doesn't mean there isn't p.c., and if you are that doesn't mean there is p.c.

The circuit board wasn't on a backpack, it was on the front of her sweatshirt. I can't argue with their initial response, but once authorities determine their wasn't a bomb, they should have taken a deep breath and said "hey, maybe wearing that to the airport wasn't the best idea". But no, once cops get all worked up about something, they can't back down so they arrested her for having a "hoax device"--a felony.
 
The circuit board wasn't on a backpack, it was on the front of her sweatshirt. I can't argue with their initial response, but once authorities determine their wasn't a bomb, they should have taken a deep breath and said "hey, maybe wearing that to the airport wasn't the best idea". But no, once cops get all worked up about something, they can't back down so they arrested her for having a "hoax device"--a felony.

How is that not a "hoax device?" Something that could be taken as a bomb, in an airport. Seems like it qualifies to me. Is an actual trial on that charge justified? Maybe not - but an arrest certainly is, especially when accompanies with an attitude.

Those laws are on the books for a reason, one of many is to prevent people from deliberately pulling pranks like that. I'm not sympathetic to that girl whatsoever - she was deliberately trying to instigate something, and got exactly what she was looking for.

Frankly, had she been shot, I would say "too bad she died, but that's what you get for deliberately trying to push the envelope in that manner."
 
How is that not a "hoax device?" Something that could be taken as a bomb, in an airport. Seems like it qualifies to me. Is an actual trial on that charge justified? Maybe not - but an arrest certainly is, especially when accompanies with an attitude.

Those laws are on the books for a reason, one of many is to prevent people from deliberately pulling pranks like that. I'm not sympathetic to that girl whatsoever - she was deliberately trying to instigate something, and got exactly what she was looking for.

Frankly, had she been shot, I would say "too bad she died, but that's what you get for deliberately trying to push the envelope in that manner."

David,

You might want to go back and read your posts in the thread regarding the incident. You thought the hoax device charge was out of line and that something like disturbing the peace would have been appropriate. The hoax charge requires intent and I haven't seen anything that would lead someone to believe she intended for people to believe it was a bomb.
 
David,

You might want to go back and read your posts in the thread regarding the incident. You thought the hoax device charge was out of line and that something like disturbing the peace would have been appropriate. The hoax charge requires intent and I haven't seen anything that would lead someone to believe she intended for people to believe it was a bomb.

I did? Hehe. :)

I'll go with whatever I wrote at the time.

If she didn't have the intent to scare people, or to have people believe it was a bomb (i.e., her intent was to be a PITA), then an obstruction charge would be the only appropriate one. I'd still have arrested her, though.

P.S. - see the edit to my post a few back in this thread re: obstruction/interference.
 
Walk into an airport with a circuit board strapped on your backpack or whatever it was, and I guarantee that any reasonable person will believe that there's a crime in progress.

I guess I'm not a reasonable person then. As I find that her being confrounted at gun point WAY over the top. And for the record it was a bread board sewn onto a sweat shirt with a big MIT Electriacl Engineering graphic... I find something compleatly wrong with being acosted at gun point for simply wearing clothing, when not even approaching the secured area.
 
I did? Hehe. :)

I'll go with whatever I wrote at the time.

If she didn't have the intent to scare people, or to have people believe it was a bomb (i.e., her intent was to be a PITA), then an obstruction charge would be the only appropriate one. I'd still have arrested her, though.

P.S. - see the edit to my post a few back in this thread re: obstruction/interference.


I'd really like to see any new information you have. Nothing I read at the time gave any guess at her intent. Which really any GUESS at her INTENT is. She was acousted at gun point while leaving the area wearing a sweatshirt that lots of MIT students own.
 
I'd really like to see any new information you have. Nothing I read at the time gave any guess at her intent. Which really any GUESS at her INTENT is. She was acousted at gun point while leaving the area wearing a sweatshirt that lots of MIT students own.

I don't have any new information. As I said, I'll defer to whatever I wrote in the old thread.

But, you're judging "actions taken at the time" by the "ultimate outcome." In terms of the justification of actions taken at the time, the ultimate outcome has no relevance.

Maybe an example is in order. I have a fake gun that looks just like a real 357. I point it at a cop. The cop, not knowing from me standing 5 yards away, that it's a fake. He kills me. He later finds out that the gun was fake. Was he unjustified in doing so?

If you look only at the ultimate outcome, yes, he was - I wasn't, in fact, any threat at all.

And, that's no different here. It's different facts, using the same equation. In an airport, someone who shows up wearing a circuit board is, to a reasonable person, a concern. A violent concern.

Were charges of a hoax device justified? Probably not - but you can bet that charges of disturbing the peace, disorderly conduct, interference/obstruction are a shoe-in. And, an arrest (at gunpoint, given the presence of a violent possibility) is not only justified, but perhaps even required under Mass. law.

Like I said, you don't get to be a PITA and then get all butthurt when you get in trouble for it. Our system in this country is "ordered liberty," not "anarchic utopia."
 
I'd really like to see any new information you have. Nothing I read at the time gave any guess at her intent. Which really any GUESS at her INTENT is. She was acousted at gun point while leaving the area wearing a sweatshirt that lots of MIT students own.

She went to the customer counter and asked about her friend coming in, and LEFT the terminal!

The bogus word came out later that she was doing some kind of art experiment or protest against the Aqua Teen also-not-a-hoax in Boston. If she wanted attention she wasn't trying to get it when went back outside.

I fully believe she grabbed a sweatshirt and went out not intending anything.

Reminds of a year or two post-9/11 when some F-15s scrambled to escort an airliner landing at O'Hare with a passenger who was flipping out. They made a sonic boom over the Chicago burbs and lotsa of panicky people thought the world was ending and BLAMED THE NATIONAL GUARD for scaring them. It's not their fault that you're ignorant and have hair-trigger nerves.
 
Last edited:
I don't have any new information. As I said, I'll defer to whatever I wrote in the old thread.

But, you're judging "actions taken at the time" by the "ultimate outcome." In terms of the justification of actions taken at the time, the ultimate outcome has no relevance.

Maybe an example is in order. I have a fake gun that looks just like a real 357. I point it at a cop. The cop, not knowing from me standing 5 yards away, that it's a fake. He kills me. He later finds out that the gun was fake. Was he unjustified in doing so?

If you look only at the ultimate outcome, yes, he was - I wasn't, in fact, any threat at all.

And, that's no different here. It's different facts, using the same equation. In an airport, someone who shows up wearing a circuit board is, to a reasonable person, a concern. A violent concern.

Were charges of a hoax device justified? Probably not - but you can bet that charges of disturbing the peace, disorderly conduct, interference/obstruction are a shoe-in. And, an arrest (at gunpoint, given the presence of a violent possibility) is not only justified, but perhaps even required under Mass. law.

Like I said, you don't get to be a PITA and then get all butthurt when you get in trouble for it. Our system in this country is "ordered liberty," not "anarchic utopia."

Do you even know the diffrence between a bread board and a circuit board???

Lets see... fake gun vs sweat shirt that clearly says MIT ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING on it... Not a good comparsion... now if you want to change it too a guy in a booth with a big sign over the top that says toy water guns, gets shot for holding a gun. Then you might just have a REASONABLE comparsion. And I would say it's wrong on both counts.
 
Bread board. Oh you mean one of these...

bamb_bread_board_LRG.jpg


I had to look it up because I didn't know what a bread board was either.

You mean one of these.
snooperOnBreadBoard.jpg


So the question is, why would you put that on your shirt?
 
Do you even know the diffrence between a bread board and a circuit board???

Missa, I am with you on this one.

No way this action was justified. No way detaining a passenger for carrying cash was justified either.

Way too many trigger happy people in this world.
 
Do you even know the diffrence between a bread board and a circuit board???

Lets see... fake gun vs sweat shirt that clearly says MIT ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING on it... Not a good comparsion... now if you want to change it too a guy in a booth with a big sign over the top that says toy water guns, gets shot for holding a gun. Then you might just have a REASONABLE comparsion. And I would say it's wrong on both counts.

Again, if you don't think that something like that presents a reasonable question, justifying at the least a temporary detention, you're in serious need of an education as to how the law works and what the law is.

Like it or not, you don't get to go into an airport (or any area in which bomb threats are known and taken seriously) wearing something that to an average person looks like it could be part of a bomb (whatever the term for describing it is). You just don't get to do that, and then you damn sure don't get to complain about it when you're treated as if you're dangerous by people who aren't familiar with either you personally or whatever it is you're wearing.

Them's the rules.
 
Bread board.

I had to look it up because I didn't know what a bread board was either.

You mean one of these.
snooperOnBreadBoard.jpg


So the question is, why would you put that on your shirt?

Because if you're an MIT Electrical or Computer Engineering student you have breadboards around like Chemistry majors have glass flasks...

attachment.php


...and as an MIT nerd you tend to do stuff like make lighted signs for parties and just because.

I put a row of Christmas lights on the pocket of my high school sweater with a battery to power them inside the pocket (LEDs hadn't been invented then.) Good thing I didn't get charged with a felony.
 

Attachments

  • starshirt.jpg
    starshirt.jpg
    36.3 KB · Views: 91
Last edited:
Missa, I am with you on this one.

No way this action was justified. No way detaining a passenger for carrying cash was justified either.

Way too many trigger happy people in this world.

That's hard to say. If it created "reasonable suspicion" under the circumstances present there, the detention was justified.

Again, them's the rules, and it's been that way for a long, long time.
 
Because if you're an MIT Electrical Engineering or Computer student you have breadboards around like chem majors have glass flasks.

...

And if you're an MIT nerd you tend to do stuff like make lighted signs for parties and just because.

I put a row of Christmas lights on the pocket of my high school sweater with a battery to power them inside the pocket (LEDs hadn't been invented then.) Good thing I didn't get charged with a felony.

That may very well be. But, for purposes of justifying stops/arrests under the 4th Amendment, that's also irrelevant unless it's known to the arresting officer.
 
Do you even know the diffrence between a bread board and a circuit board???

What difference does it make, in this context?

I know the difference, but the vast majority of the population doesn't.

I'd hope, though, an MIT student, of all people, wouldn't take the lazy route and use a breadboard!


Trapper John
 
Do you even know the diffrence between a bread board and a circuit board???

Lets see... fake gun vs sweat shirt that clearly says MIT ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING on it... Not a good comparsion... now if you want to change it too a guy in a booth with a big sign over the top that says toy water guns, gets shot for holding a gun. Then you might just have a REASONABLE comparsion. And I would say it's wrong on both counts.

P.S. - to the extent you question whether I know the difference between a bread board and a circuit board (I don't), that's about as strong as evidence as you can get that your average person isn't going to, either.

In turn meaning that, for 4th Amendment purposes, the distinction doesn't matter - because the 4th Amendment analysis turns on what a reasonable person would think, absent actual specialized knowledge on the individual part of the officer involved.
 
Folks: don't forget about the guys that put the little electronic gadgets around Boston and got busted for a felony.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Boston_bomb_scare

May not have been right, but they were charged and had to apologize and do community service. Cost Turner $2,000,000 for putting simple LED devises up of a cartoon character. IMO, the Boston Police really over reacted. The prosecution of these folks was nuts.

Best,

Dave
 
OH MY GOD!!!

"This whole TSA crap has gone way too far. That is an organization that has way too much power and way too little oversight. And as far as I am concerned, contributes very little to the safety of the system."
-Greg Bockelman 1/1/08

Greg,

Any investment advice or lottery numbers you'd care to share? ;)
 
Greg,

Any investment advice or lottery numbers you'd care to share? ;)

It is too late to get out of the market, if you have money to put into the market, dollar cost over the next year or so, and contribute to a ROTH IRA on a regular basis.

7 9 14 26 35 and 40
 
Folks: don't forget about the guys that put the little electronic gadgets around Boston and got busted for a felony.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Boston_bomb_scare

May not have been right, but they were charged and had to apologize and do community service. Cost Turner $2,000,000 for putting simple LED devises up of a cartoon character. IMO, the Boston Police really over reacted. The prosecution of these folks was nuts.

Best,

Dave

I agree with you. I believe "hoax device" was also mentioned/charged there, wasn't it (too lazy to read link)?

Something like defacing property would be more appropriate. Stupid? Yes. $2M stupid? Not really.
 
Walk into an airport with a circuit board strapped on your backpack or whatever it was, and I guarantee that any reasonable person will believe that there's a crime in progress.
I'm familiar with this standard. In any case, I would think it's not only about what a reasonable person would believe. It would likely also be about what a reasonable police officer with experience would believe. Quite often, cops have been able to establish P.C. based on their experience as police officers.

That said, I believe another issue here is education. Regular police/TSA/other poorly educated folks think that their task is to detect obviously foolish behavior that looks dangerous. They need to take some time to educate officers that terrorists most likely wouldn't be stupid enough to draw attention to themselves by wearing a circuit board around their neck....the general population might think that's suspicious, but it isn't really and maybe it shouldn't be suspicious to an informed officer.

-Felix
 
Not sure if it has been stated in this way before in the thread, and I am (as you all know well) too lazy to make a proper determination-

the fundamental problem is, we have people who have not been trained or qualified (psych profile and temperament) to be peace officers (and, in my experience, the majority of professional peace officers are professionals, by training and by attitude), taking actions which are appropriate ONLY for trained and qualified peace officers.

These over-eager Barney Fife wannabes (the TSA people) should be subjected to severe punishment, up to and including termination, and further, should be liable to the detained fellow for false imprisonment.

There has got to be a consequence for behavior like this. Where is the ACLU now?
 
That's hard to say. If it created "reasonable suspicion" under the circumstances present there, the detention was justified.

Again, them's the rules, and it's been that way for a long, long time.

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

Missa
 
Last edited:
Back
Top