Lawsuit against TSA and DEA over airport seizures achieves first victory(ij.org)
ij.org
Lawsuit against TSA and DEA over airport seizures achieves first victory
https://ij.org/press-release/major-class-action-lawsuit-against-tsa-and-dea-over-airport-seizures-achieves-first-round-victory/
112 comments
Civil forfeiture is a joke. Either prove a crime occurred or GTFO.
Is there any reason for someone to fly between states with so much money ? It’s not just the tsa that could rob it
No reason is necessary. It’s their property. Perhaps they don’t trust banks, or are buying something at auction or a vehicle that requires a cash payment (second hand septic pump truck, for example).
We don’t ask folks to declare other financial instruments (cashiers check, money orders) or jewelry on domestic flights. Cash is no different.
We don’t ask folks to declare other financial instruments (cashiers check, money orders) or jewelry on domestic flights. Cash is no different.
> second hand septic pump truck
That is waaay too specific for you to have come up with it right off the top of your head; I sense there's a story here.
That is waaay too specific for you to have come up with it right off the top of your head; I sense there's a story here.
Sat next to someone on a flight carrying ~$100k in cash to buy one second hand and drive it back to the origin because it was much cheaper than buying a new one. A story for sure, but a boring one.
You have to be one kind of stupid to casually travel with that much cash and a whole 'nother kind of stupid to tell the person you're sitting next to that you're doing so.
Being stupid is not a crime. Having money is not a crime. Taking money that is not yours is a crime.
Best to just get a private jet to take you at that point... what is a few more grand to save you the TSA hassle if you want to fly like a rich person you might as well go all the way.
100k for a work-truck isn't rich people money. It's grind it out small business owner money. Maybe still a millionaire but private plane money is ... a lot.
Like perhaps the weekly takings of any number of small businesses? It woukd be odd, but i dont see it as strange for people to wind up on planes with that sort of cash. Maybe they are just in a hurry and didnt get to the bank after work and plan to make the weekly deposit after the flight.
And dont forget that, at least for some people, 100k is chunk change. Maybe they are heading to a big poker tournament with other 0.1%ers.
And dont forget that, at least for some people, 100k is chunk change. Maybe they are heading to a big poker tournament with other 0.1%ers.
Civil people don't care, and would wish the person success in their business endeavor.
You're civil, aren't you? Or were we just caught thinking with that side of the brain again?
Contrary to popular belief, there are in general perfectly reasonable people out there to talk business with in transit.
You're civil, aren't you? Or were we just caught thinking with that side of the brain again?
Contrary to popular belief, there are in general perfectly reasonable people out there to talk business with in transit.
Here's the thing, though. It's not the civil people you have to worry about. It's the bad apple. Just like you shouldn't walk down an alley in a bad part of town wearing a suit. Sure, most times you'd have no issue... but it only takes one time to ruin your life forever.
>Civil people don't care, and would wish the person success in their business endeavor.
Not every person you meet will be "civil", despite appearances.
Not every person you meet will be "civil", despite appearances.
Very true!
Upvote me if you think you would spend the entire flight thinking of a way to pocket $1000.
Woah! The idea of carrying that much cash is giving me a lot of third-hand anxiety. Did the person seem overly anxious? I can't imagine sharing that information with someone I just met!
Nope, calm good 'ol boy having a mini gin and tonic. Lots of interesting folks out there waiting to be met.
Did you see the cash?
I wouldn’t have shared the tale if I hadn’t.
I find it amazing that someone carrying that much money would show it off like that.
I carried a $20k diamond ring on a transatlantic flight. At the time I was the definition of paranoid because it wasn’t insured at the time. Looking back it wasn’t that big of a deal
There is a border patrol show I caught one episode of when visiting family - some guy declared $400k when crossing into Canada. All in a carryon backpack.
Was shooting a movie and had too much trouble setting up a Canadian account so decided to pay everyone cash.
Cash was counted and returned to him.
Was shooting a movie and had too much trouble setting up a Canadian account so decided to pay everyone cash.
Cash was counted and returned to him.
I have a difficult time believing this story. Did they show the cash to you? How you do know they weren't lying?
I tell it because, for your typical HN audience, it's so incredulous and yet incredibly normal for the people who do it. I hope you enjoyed the story regardless, because I enjoyed getting to meet Rory (the gentleman in question) and having him share with me how he made his wealth off of pumping other people's shit (his words! "black gold"). I still have his very non PC business card in a keepsake box somewhere.
Life can be stranger than fiction, and I love a good story.
Life can be stranger than fiction, and I love a good story.
So, uh, he's a septic tank cleaner?
Anyway, I call shenanigans unless he showed you his suitcase full of cash.
Anyway, I call shenanigans unless he showed you his suitcase full of cash.
[deleted]
"The class action lawsuit was filed in January 2020 on behalf of Terry Rolin and his daughter Rebecca Brown. TSA and DEA officials seized Terry’s life savings of over $82,000 from Rebecca as she was flying from Pittsburgh to her home outside Boston, where she intended to open a joint bank account to help care for her father."
bitcoin fixes this
Bitcoin and other digital assets _hide_ the problem. If the TSA knew you had a bitcoin wallet on the hard drive, they could seize that instead.
If you have full-disk-encryption and a crypto-wallet passphrase, you may be held on contempt charges anyways. That might be better, it might not. The underlying problem of "the state can seize your assets if you act 'suspicious'" is still there.
If you have full-disk-encryption and a crypto-wallet passphrase, you may be held on contempt charges anyways. That might be better, it might not. The underlying problem of "the state can seize your assets if you act 'suspicious'" is still there.
To be pedantic, I don’t think they can hold you in contempt without also involving you in the process, giving you some legal say to fight it. The whole issue with civil asset forfeiture is that it divorces the property from its owner, legally speaking.
You should research this. A judge can order you to provide the passphrase to decrypt the storage that contains the bitcoin wallet if it is a foregone conclusion that there is one on there, and if you refuse then you can be held in contempt and jailed until you do provide it. There is no time limit to contempt of court imprisonment because you are free to stop being in contempt whenever you choose. You will have a very hard time getting an appeals court to issue a mandamus order to the judge that jailed you for contempt, and by "hard" I mean "impossible".
Yes but those aren’t civil asset forfeiture cases, which this discussion is about.
Show me a bitcoin ATM where I can withdraw $82k cash.
I hear you. You can't get $82k cash from an ATM, you need a flesh and blood teller for that. Fine, fine, if there's a bank of bitcoin that will facilitate my $82k withdrawal, I'd be happy with that.
I hear you. You can't get $82k cash from an ATM, you need a flesh and blood teller for that. Fine, fine, if there's a bank of bitcoin that will facilitate my $82k withdrawal, I'd be happy with that.
Not at once*.
You can spread it out over time. Banks would rather you did it in person so they can do the paperwork fpr large cash transactions once instead of 41 times.
You can spread it out over time. Banks would rather you did it in person so they can do the paperwork fpr large cash transactions once instead of 41 times.
A friend of mine recently discovered that their bank's ATM has a $400 daily limit per customer. That isn't the account limit -- absurdly, that can be raised over the phone -- the ATM limit cannot be.
That's interesting. That may be new. I'm pretty sure I used to do 600 at a time, and I know I did 1200 at least once back in college.
Which is hilarious, in a tragic way, because I've almost always ended up as an outlier in most sets of data that I end up in. Nice to know somewhere along the way the powersthat be decided to make everyone's life even more miserably constrained, probably in the name of risk mitigation.
Which is hilarious, in a tragic way, because I've almost always ended up as an outlier in most sets of data that I end up in. Nice to know somewhere along the way the powersthat be decided to make everyone's life even more miserably constrained, probably in the name of risk mitigation.
Feasibly, couldn't this be because they don't want one person to completely drain an ATM requiring another re-ship/restock?
border agents are allowed to warrantlessly search electronic devices when you fly, including online accounts that you control, and have the power to detain you in order to compel you to divulge passwords. if you have bitcoin on you when you fly, or simply have a coinbase wallet, it's just as vulnerable as cash.
I wouldn't say it's just as vulnerable. It's at least slightly less convenient if they have to drag you in front of a judge to try and get you found in contempt of court; law enforcement try to avoid actual defendants being able to get in a courtroom for a reason.
You do not have to divulge your password. If you don't, you might be deported if you are not a citizen. If you're a citizen, your device might be seized and you lose a day or so, but that's the worst of it
Bitcoin doesn't fix this at all. In any way. Bitcoin's value fluctuates wildly.
The value of your cash fluctuates wildly to zero when the government can seize it without due process and you can't get it back.
Well, you are right about that, but that doesn't change the fact that Bitcoin does not solve this problem.
if the value of a currency fluctuates to zero, and the government seizes your wallet while it's worthless, they've taken nothing and you are financially uninjured. no rights violated. checkmate
dogecoin is the ultimate asset of the digital nomad
dogecoin is the ultimate asset of the digital nomad
Sure but he meant to say crypto currency. USDC, DAI, tether, whatever.
The price of Bitcoin could change massively during the time you deposit it and then withdraw.
Then hold a stablecoin instead. I believe the GP meant to refer to crypto currency, not BTC in particular.
Monero, actually.
True, but now you have two problems.
I’ve done it before when moving to California many years ago. I was switching banks at the same time and I wanted the funds to be immediately available (i.e. open the account and deposit the cash at the same time). I also needed to rent a home immediately.
Secondly, I play a lot of poker and regularly take $25k or more with me to Vegas, especially if it’s a spur of the moment flight. I keep my bankroll in cash because it’s simpler than having to go to a bank every time I want to play.
Secondly, I play a lot of poker and regularly take $25k or more with me to Vegas, especially if it’s a spur of the moment flight. I keep my bankroll in cash because it’s simpler than having to go to a bank every time I want to play.
I don't gable so I don't really know how modern casinos work. But do they not allow you to wire the money to your account at the casino from a bank account?
They do but there is both a wire fee and a 1-2 day delay (and no weekends). I have literally decided “hey, let’s go to Vegas” and been on a plane within three hours, on a weekend. A wire just doesn’t work there.
Additionally, I also play locally and it’s tough to get access to tens of thousands in actual cash immediately, especially in a small cardroom or “home” game.
Additionally, I also play locally and it’s tough to get access to tens of thousands in actual cash immediately, especially in a small cardroom or “home” game.
- Distrust of financial institutions
- Distrust of government herein obviously justified
- Large debts including but not limited to medical debt that would result in the funds enriching creditors instead of serving the individuals needs
- Need to do business with individuals with any of the above considerations the best example is probably a car from a private seller.
- A transaction related to the marijuana industry that is legal for the majority of Americans and still illegal federally and therefore untouchable by a bank.
If you don't carry it in a bag with a large dollar sign or lurk in a bad part of town after dark your chances of getting robbed are statistically small.
- Distrust of government herein obviously justified
- Large debts including but not limited to medical debt that would result in the funds enriching creditors instead of serving the individuals needs
- Need to do business with individuals with any of the above considerations the best example is probably a car from a private seller.
- A transaction related to the marijuana industry that is legal for the majority of Americans and still illegal federally and therefore untouchable by a bank.
If you don't carry it in a bag with a large dollar sign or lurk in a bad part of town after dark your chances of getting robbed are statistically small.
People should not have to have a reason for doing legal things, but reasons might include traveling to a casino to play high-stakes poker, moving to a new city, planning to buy something large in cash, or making the treasury drop for a business.
Back in 19(mumble), I drove from VA to IL with all of my possessions in my Civic Hatchback, including my life savings wrapped in a towel, inside a casserole, inside my microwave. Now, my life savings at the time was around $2500... I was moving, so I closed out my old bank account and planned to open a new one when I got where I was going.
When I was a kid, my mom was the bookkeeper for a local drug store. She had to make the treasury drop at the bank (deposit the cash from the registers). She would drive her car, and an assistant manager would literally ride shotgun - ok, not literally, he was wearing a pistol.
Back in 19(mumble), I drove from VA to IL with all of my possessions in my Civic Hatchback, including my life savings wrapped in a towel, inside a casserole, inside my microwave. Now, my life savings at the time was around $2500... I was moving, so I closed out my old bank account and planned to open a new one when I got where I was going.
When I was a kid, my mom was the bookkeeper for a local drug store. She had to make the treasury drop at the bank (deposit the cash from the registers). She would drive her car, and an assistant manager would literally ride shotgun - ok, not literally, he was wearing a pistol.
This is the part I'm legitimately fearful of society forgetting in this day and age.
You are allowed to <except>. Just be ause you don't normally run into X doesn't mean it's illegal; regardless of what law enforcement and the media do their best to have you believe.
You are allowed to <except>. Just be ause you don't normally run into X doesn't mean it's illegal; regardless of what law enforcement and the media do their best to have you believe.
Human beings are ridiculously diverse in behavior and no one should be asking "why would anyone ...?"
This is exactly the kind of thinking uninspiring politicians have when they try to or pass laws that curtail freedom for no good reason.
This is exactly the kind of thinking uninspiring politicians have when they try to or pass laws that curtail freedom for no good reason.
it shouldn't have any bearing on whether the TSA confiscates it, but it's a reasonable question to ask. I too wonder why it makes sense to transport $82k in cash just to open up a new bank account. if you just walk into the branch and say you want to open a new account with that much money, they'd likely pay the wire fee for you.
I think that the legally mandated utter lack of financial privacy in the US is basis enough for why the question is unreasonable.
Plenty of people love and use cash, myself included. We don't need a reason for our preferences, but there exist plenty of good ones if you unreasonably demand that one exist.
Plenty of people love and use cash, myself included. We don't need a reason for our preferences, but there exist plenty of good ones if you unreasonably demand that one exist.
it's unreasonable for me to ask even as a private citizen? I like cash too and frequently use it. I'm really just curious here. under what set of beliefs would it make sense to transport $82k cash across the country just to open a bank account that would be subject to all the usual KYC?
Why do people need reasons to do things now? Whatever happened to freedom?
It is not a crime, and the TSA's mission is not to prevent people from taking stupid risks with their money or property (nor is the TSA a law enforcement agency, so it is not really relevant that it is not a crime). What the TSA did was unjustifiable, regardless of whether or not you understand why someone would travel with that much cash.
Not being able to travel with your own cash above a meager limit reminds me of totalitarian regimes in eastern europe when I grew up before communism collapsed. Not very fond of those memories in particular.
I usually Pooh-Pooh claims of totalitarianism as being alarmist, but in this case, it is totally deserved.
Yes.
Yes. There is a reason. It is called freedom.
> Transportation Security Administration (TSA) screeners will detain them and turn them over to law enforcement, who will take their money without any cause for suspicion and without filing any criminal charges
This is insanity.
This is insanity.
What is more insane is that only through Class Action can this suit succeed. Why? Because as the current trick by government agencies is that if they think the court case will go against them they return the money before the ruling. This voids the case in the eyes of the court by worse puts the victim on the hook for attorney fees[0]
[0]https://reason.com/2019/11/21/with-this-forfeiture-trick-inn...
[0]https://reason.com/2019/11/21/with-this-forfeiture-trick-inn...
The US Supreme Court just recently struck this down in a first amendment case, where a university said “Hey, we changed the rules, you now have no standing to sue.” The Supreme Court said “There was still damage, so they still have a cause of action.”
People underestimate the impact of that case. 2nd Amendmemt cases can actually have a leg to stand on if a group is willing to push it hard enough. There's still the certiorari hurdle to traverse, but it'd be nice to see the justices set their minds to it.
4th as well as 2nd will benefit greatly from closing that loophole but it will likely take a decade or more for the courts to hand out a sufficient number of "no you idiots this is covered under our previous ruling X" type of rulings.
This trick has been going on for 30+yr. States have been using "well we gave it back u no longer have standing" to keep their unconstitutional laws out of the courts since at least the 90s.
Yeah, I don't understand how civil forfeiture hasn't been quashed by now. It's not just the TSA and DEA, all sorts of law enforcement do it.
I don't understand how civil asset forfeiture isn't called stealing. Legal or not, the people doing it are no better than thieves and robbers. They should (probably) be socially treated the same way as well.
Because the drug war, and racism.
Law enforcement reserves the right to commit murder with impunity, why would theft keep them up at night?
I think it's a weird perversion of the "monopoly on violence" that the state claims.
Because it targets people from lower classes/castes?
(On caste system in the US I recommend “Caste: The Origins of Our Discontents” by Isabel Wilkerson)
(On caste system in the US I recommend “Caste: The Origins of Our Discontents” by Isabel Wilkerson)
I don’t understand how neither party has made it a top issue to address.
I suppose nobody's been dumb enough to do it to a Senator or their inner circle.
Because the blue states love seizing guns and the red states love seizing drugs (and any assets the person who has either happens to have with them).
> Because the blue states love seizing guns
Citation needed.
Citation needed.
That's with judge's permission. It's a planned action, not a "we stopped you, by the way, give it to us".
Irrelevant; GP asked for a citation of blue states loving seizing guns.
We can't quite go from "it happens with a due process and judge approval" to "state loves doing it". The highest user seems to be Florida with "9.4 orders per year per 100,000 residents", which hardly confirms the "loves" part.
of the few issues that reach at both ends of the isle, this is one of them.
somehow, this has avoided sunshine for far too long
somehow, this has avoided sunshine for far too long
This is the case also for the UK, Europe, Canada and New Zealand. If you don't have "proof" that this money is legitimate and belongs to you, then it'll be seized.
There is no civil forfeiture as such in Europe. The UK and Ireland have a weaker version of the US situation but no other member of the European Union has it. What you are talking about (crossing a border with over a certain amount of money in cash without declaring it) is a completely separated topic that exists basically everywhere and is not a problem because it is very clear what you should and should not do (do not cross a border with thousands of dollars/euros in cash without declaring it to customs).
Civil forfeiture is a cancer driven by greed of elected officials and the bureaucracy. That money pays their salaries and buys their toys so the politicians can pay them less.
We shouldn't call this euphemistically "greed and bureaucracy" when we can call it what it is: corruption at every level (from the legislator to the guy in the agency setting the policy).
As I said in the past, we're trained to think that the pervasive small time corruption is the dangerous one, the small bribe you may give to a cop to get out of a speeding fine. In reality that type has close to no impact on society compared to high level corruption like this.
If this had happened in any "3rd world country" nobody would hesitate to call it corruption.
As I said in the past, we're trained to think that the pervasive small time corruption is the dangerous one, the small bribe you may give to a cop to get out of a speeding fine. In reality that type has close to no impact on society compared to high level corruption like this.
If this had happened in any "3rd world country" nobody would hesitate to call it corruption.
Corruption? Nah, corruption is the cause. Unlawful search and seizure, theft, and illegal detainment are the actual crimes. Time to put some badge carriers in jail.
That's exactly what I meant. Bureaucracy is a result of large administrative systems and it's hard to avoid. Civil forfeiture (among many, many other things) is the result of massive systemic corruption at high levels. The kind of corruption that shapes every fiber of society.
It's not an accident that laws don't look at the deed but rather at where the person sits in society. There's not enough room in a book, let alone a comment to show just the most obvious evidence of this. But when someone can use an "affluenza" [0] defense to kill people and get away with it, you know where that country stands.
[0] https://edition.cnn.com/2020/01/02/us/ethan-couch-affluenza-...
It's not an accident that laws don't look at the deed but rather at where the person sits in society. There's not enough room in a book, let alone a comment to show just the most obvious evidence of this. But when someone can use an "affluenza" [0] defense to kill people and get away with it, you know where that country stands.
[0] https://edition.cnn.com/2020/01/02/us/ethan-couch-affluenza-...
> If this had happened in any "3rd world country" nobody would hesitate to call it corruption
And it's the same for unlimited campaign contributions and lobbying.
And it's the same for unlimited campaign contributions and lobbying.
IANAL, but I'm worried that a defense attorney could fight this on the wording of point 2:
> the TSA violates the Fourth Amendment by detaining travelers and their cash without reasonable suspicion of criminality
Skinner v. Railway Labor Executives Association[1] was the Supreme Court case that set precedent for random drug testing of public employees in sensitive positions, which would otherwise also be a fourth amendment violation. It doesn't seem like much of a stretch to say that precedent applies just as well (in the general sense) to searches/detainment of airline passengers in the name of public safety.
The defense would need to sweep the fact the money in this particular case was "detained" (ahem, stolen) for six months (as opposed to, like, one minute to check it for hazards) under the rug, but since this is a class action lawsuit rather than a lawsuit about this particular incident, isn't that detail irrelevant to the class action suit?
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skinner_v._Railway_Labor_Execu...
> the TSA violates the Fourth Amendment by detaining travelers and their cash without reasonable suspicion of criminality
Skinner v. Railway Labor Executives Association[1] was the Supreme Court case that set precedent for random drug testing of public employees in sensitive positions, which would otherwise also be a fourth amendment violation. It doesn't seem like much of a stretch to say that precedent applies just as well (in the general sense) to searches/detainment of airline passengers in the name of public safety.
The defense would need to sweep the fact the money in this particular case was "detained" (ahem, stolen) for six months (as opposed to, like, one minute to check it for hazards) under the rug, but since this is a class action lawsuit rather than a lawsuit about this particular incident, isn't that detail irrelevant to the class action suit?
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skinner_v._Railway_Labor_Execu...
The issue I see as far as civil rights goes is that the TSA reports evidence of crimes, real or imagined, to law enforcement. The TSA is allowed to perform invasive, non-optional searches of the traveling public that no law enforcement agency could perform; that should leave no room for any "cooperation" with law enforcement. Right now we have a back door that law enforcement agencies can use to avoid meeting the legal requirements for searching a person or their belongings: relying on a non-law-enforcement agency that follows a completely different set of rules.
To put it another way, the reason we allow drug tests of railroad workers is to ensure employees are sober when they are operating dangerous equipment. The reason we allow the TSA to search people and their belongings is to prevent terrorism. In neither case should there be any form of "cooperation" with law enforcement agencies based on a search that the law enforcement agency itself could not have performed.
To put it another way, the reason we allow drug tests of railroad workers is to ensure employees are sober when they are operating dangerous equipment. The reason we allow the TSA to search people and their belongings is to prevent terrorism. In neither case should there be any form of "cooperation" with law enforcement agencies based on a search that the law enforcement agency itself could not have performed.
Ironically, this is the same reason law enforcement has to jump through extra hoops to get IRS data.
If that financial data were shared without protections, no one would declare anything. Which hamstrings the capability of the service to operate. The same logic should be applied to TSA. If they must violate the 4th Amendment to keep airlines able to do business, they should not be able to tag in law enforcement, and more importantly, they should not be acting as an extension of DEA or Customs. It should be strictly limited to disarmament/destructive device detection.
But lets be honest with ourselves, That is too sane and principled to ever be executed on.
If that financial data were shared without protections, no one would declare anything. Which hamstrings the capability of the service to operate. The same logic should be applied to TSA. If they must violate the 4th Amendment to keep airlines able to do business, they should not be able to tag in law enforcement, and more importantly, they should not be acting as an extension of DEA or Customs. It should be strictly limited to disarmament/destructive device detection.
But lets be honest with ourselves, That is too sane and principled to ever be executed on.
Amazing that this is so long after the establishment of the TSA and their arbitrary seizure practices.
Both these TLAs have spent decades burning taxpayer money on theatre while failing at their purported charters and both ad-hoc and systematically abusing citizens and non-citizens alike. Their behavior in this case is reprehensible and completely unsurprising; by and large, these organizations are jobs programs for bullies.
How do TSA and DEA’s airport seizure policies compare to agencies in other countries? I would be pleased with a victory here but even happier if the victory could be replicated elsewhere.
The real reason this is allowed to persist is to limit people’s behavior.
If you aré carrying a big wad of cash, it’s safe to say you aren’t performing a service for the ruling class. You are probably defying your servile status and must be made an example of.
Rich people carry large amounts of cash without suspicion or difficulty. It’s only peasants that get their assets seized just because they have them.
If you aré carrying a big wad of cash, it’s safe to say you aren’t performing a service for the ruling class. You are probably defying your servile status and must be made an example of.
Rich people carry large amounts of cash without suspicion or difficulty. It’s only peasants that get their assets seized just because they have them.
> You are probably defying your servile status and must be made an example of.
By Joe Blow, minimum-wage TSA agent #24601?
By Joe Blow, minimum-wage TSA agent #24601?
So he can advance his station. See guys, I can oppress, can I join the rich people club?.
I'm not rich now, but when I am then people like me better watch their step!
I'm not rich now, but when I am then people like me better watch their step!
I have a hard time imagining Jean Valjean as a TSA agent. That seems rather more Javert's role.
Yes, one of the great paradoxes of society's class structure is that most of the dirty work of enforcing it is done by people who are not in the club themselves.
> Rich people carry large amounts of cash without suspicion or difficulty.
Like whom?
Like whom?
There needs to be a RICO prosecution of TSA & DEA.