METO Guido

What a goober. Miranda, that’s what you got. Enjoy.

Excargodog

I'd agree. But DEA rifling through peoples carryons in hopes that you can find a wad of cash they can confiscate through civil asset forfeiture with no proof of any wrong doing? And then have to go through the legal expense to prove your innocence to get it back? Not so much.

I have yet to see an aircraft brought down by a wad of cash in a carryon.

JohnBurke

Consent to search is given at any time past initial screening. It is a condition of entry. If one wishes to entere the secure areea, one is subject to search. One is not merely subject to search at the screening point. At ANY time there after, one is subject to search, and has consented to that search by entry.

One is not subject to search only for specific items. One cannot cry foul, having consented to search, if one's belongings are searched for cash, chicken feathers, knives, blue playing cards, or ceramic dachshunds with a clock in the belly. One cannot cry foul if one is discovered with contraband in an area subject to search, if one has consenteed to search, and one has consented by being present in the secure area. One may be searched multiple times. One cannot say that one has been searched once, and cannot be searched again. One is subject to search any time while in the secure area. Read the damn signs.

SonicFlyer

You clearly fail at logic and understanding the Constitution.

JohnBurke

Constitutionally speaking, one has the right to not enter the secure area, and thus to not consent to search.

Once one has entered, and thus consented to search, one is subject to search, because that is a condition of entry. As a condition of entry, posted and advertised in advance, it remains a condition once inside the secure area, and one is, just as the signs say, subject to search at all times. All persons, all property.

As a known crewmember, you are no more exempt than anyone else from that fact.

You can refuse to give your consent. Do that by staying out of the secure area. Don't whine about your consent once it's been given, however, and once you're the secure area, your consent is in effect until you leave, or are removed.

What you can't do is enter the secure area and refuse consent once inside. You gave consent by entry. You can refuse it by leaving, but until you've left, you remain subject to search, at any time. Probable cause is not required.

Play the sovereign citizen card all you like, but it does nothing to change the fact, and good luck "refusing consent" if you're told to submit to a search. Let us know how that works out for you.

PNWFlyer

well, that is not the signal.

anyone know what a dog does when it hits on what it is trained to find?

seen a Beagle do it in South Korea and a Labrador in Canada. When they pull people out of the line you can see it in their face. Oh ****. These dogs are good.

Excargodog

One can cry foul when their cash is confiscated when there is no prohibition against carrying large sums of cash, just as one could cry foul if their underwear is confiscated.

Grabbing your cash and making you sue to get it back is not merely a bad idea, it is in fact unconstitutional. I couldn't GAF if they confiscate your illegal drugs, knives, explosive devices, etc. Frankly, I'd cheer them on. But you possessing legal tender or anything else both legal and innocuous, ought to be off limits from seizure.

METO Guido

Never owned a pet but I believe you. Public transportation means adios privacy. Among other annoying trade offs.

SonicFlyer

You are confusing multiple things, probably on purpose.

After you pass the initial screening, you can then only be searched again for weapons. After the checkpoint, without some sort of probable cause, it's an illegal search unless again it is for weapons. DEA can't search you for weapons randomly unless they have probable cause. TSA can. If TSA finds contraband they can turn you over to LEOs, such as the DEA. But TSA can't arrest you. And TSA already knows what you have in your bag since you have already passed the checkpoint.

You really should try reading some about law and how the Constitution works. Your ignorance is showing pretty bad here.


Are you kidding?!? I hope it happens to me because it would be like winning the lottery. I would win so much in the lawsuit/settlement I would retire (I know a guy this happened to). And then I would stipulate they wouldn't be allowed to do this any more in the settlement too.

AirBear

The Supreme Court has already indicated in comments on other cases they'll rule against Civil Asset Forfiture. That's why no local, state, or federal law enforcement will ever let a case go there. They just give the money back before it can get that far.

There was a case where a guy was caught with a small amount of heroin which called for a max fine of $10K. They seized his Range Rover valued at $43K. But he was able to prove he bought the SUV with an inheritance I think it was. He won at the 2 lower court levels but was overuled by the Indiana Supreme Court. It went to the US Supreme Court where he won (link below). If someone who did commit a crime can't have a $43K SUV taken from them then how can they justify someone who has not committed any crime having large amounts of cash seized?

https://www.indystar.com/story/news/...on/2926312002/