The TSA’s official blog tries to address questions over a recent incident at St Louis International where discovery that a passenger was flying with $4710 in cash triggered some unpleasantness. In the original entry, Bob the TSA Blogger noted:
Movements of large amounts of cash through the checkpoint may be investigated by law enforcement authorities if criminal activity is suspected. As a general rule, passengers are required to cooperate with the screening process. Cooperation may involve answering questions about their property, including why they are carrying a large sum of cash. A passenger who refuses to answer questions may be referred to appropriate authorities for further inquiry.
In the 312 comments at the post, various questions about this policy were raised, leading to this clarification from the TSA’s Chief Counsel:
Sometimes a TSA officer may ask a passenger who is carrying a large sum of cash to account for the money. You have asked why such a question is posed and whether a passenger is required to answer.
In reacting to potential security problems or signs of criminal activity, TSA officers are trained to ask questions and assess passenger reactions, including whether a passenger appears to be cooperative and forthcoming in responding.
TSA officers routinely come across evidence of criminal activity at the airport checkpoint. Examples include evidence of illegal drug trafficking, money laundering, and violations of currency reporting requirements prior to international trips.
When presented with a passenger carrying a large sum of money through the screening checkpoint, the TSA officer will frequently engage in dialog with the passenger to determine whether a referral to law-enforcement authorities is warranted.
The TSA officer may consider all circumstances in making the assessment, including the behavior and credibility of the passenger. Thus, a failure to be forthcoming may inform a TSA officer’s decision to call law-enforcement authorities.
Or, to put it another way:
- If we think you’re a criminal, or are doing something which might be a crime, you are required to convince us otherwise.
- If you don’t convince us, we’ll call the police. If that means you miss your flight, spend time in custody while your lack of story is checked out, or get an official file and no-fly order put together for you, it’s all your fault.
- By the way, we’re not just about catching terrorists or making sure no dangerous items get onboard. Yeah, that was the excuse for our being established, but now we’re basically ad hoc security officers for whatever we get into our head that we want you to do.
- Oh, yeah, we’re not actually law enforcement officers. That means we don’t have any of the annoying restrictions and legal requirements that they do. What we say, goes. If you don’t like it, don’t fly.
Note that the link so pointedly included above points to a document that says:
It is legal to transport any amount of currency or other monetary instruments into or out of the United States. However, if you transport, attempt to transport, or cause to be transported (including by mail or other means) currency or other monetary instruments in an aggregate amount exceeding $10,000 or its foreign equivalent) at one time from the United States to any foreign country, or into the United States from any foreign country, you must ile a report with U.S. Customs and Border Protection.
Which seems to beg the question as to why someone carrying $4710 was pulled aside and questioned. Not to mentioned cursed at for refusing to answer where the money was from.
But, then, note that the question of whether you are legally obligated to answer TSA questions is not answered. The fact is, you’re not — but if you don’t, that’s “uncooperative behavior,” and you will almost certainly miss your flight (at your own cost), and probably spend some time being grilled by the cops (at the very least).
You have been warned. Resistance may or may not be futile, but it will be damned inconvenient. And expensive.
Sounds like mission creep to me, and another reason to avoid flying if at all possible. But you raise an interesting point when you note that TSA agents are not really law enforcement agents. Would the situation improve if security checkpoints were manned by law enforcement agents, or would it become even more tyrannical? I don’t know the answer, and I don’t even have an educated opinion.
It’s hard to say. As it stands, the TSA can simply say, “Well, we’re not law enforcement, so we don’t have any restrictions on our power” (see the comments in the second post cited above). Plus, they usually have access to actual law enforcement officers when they need to escalate matters, meaning they have all the de facto authority with none of the responsibility.
Piffle…
It’s been happening since the stupid war on Drugs started and they use to use the RICO laws to take any money off of anyone they suspected *cough*not white*cough*….but since it seems to have happened to a white guy it’s something worth fretting about.
Basically I treat the airport like I use to treat the Flats production areas…anything you take in there can disapear, so do not take anything with you that you don’t mind losing since it will be either taken from you by the TSA or by the laugage handlers.
It’s that the rules appear to be arbitrary *and* denied that I think is the most maddening The “rules” appear to be “whatever the TSO thinks is something they want to make a deal about.” The arbitrary and unaccountable exercise of power is what’s maddening; and, yes, I’m sure that this is affecting “everyone” makes it more prominent than similar situations that other folks have always faced.