TSA Asks America To LOL At Traveler Who Had $75,000 Taken From Him By Federal Agents
from the the-4chan-of-government-agencies dept
The TSA runs a fairly entertaining Instagram account, if you're the sort of person who is impressed by pictures of weapons seized from stupid passengers. That would be the extent of its social media prowess. Its blog is pretty much a 50/50 mix of Yet Another Thing You Can't Take Onboard and Blogger Bob defending the TSA's latest gaffe.
One of the TSA's official Twitter flacks tried to loft a lighthearted "hey, look at this thing we came across!" tweet. She couldn't have picked a worse "thing" to highlight, considering the ongoing outrage over civil asset forfeiture.
For those who can't see the embed, the tweet says:
If you had $75,000, is this how you'd transport it? Just asking! TSA @ #RIC spotted this traveler's preferred methodPictured was someone's carry-on bag, opened to expose the cash contained in it.
First: should the TSA be broadcasting the contents of someone's luggage -- especially considering the contents are a large amount of cash -- along with broadcasting the airport where it was discovered and the baggage's appearance? There may not be any recognizable privacy violations here, but it's certainly bad form. And it does no favors to the person carrying it.
Second: unless the traveler was attempting to take the money out of the country without reporting it to Customs, it's none of the TSA's business how a traveler carries money from place to place. It may be careless, but it is not illegal and it is certainly not something government agencies should spend too much time obsessing over. (But of course they will, because travelers' cash can quickly become the government's cash, thanks to civil asset forfeiture.)
Third: the TSA's public interest in this member of the public's cash is flat-out unseemly. Not only does the tweet portray the unnamed person as some sort of idiot/criminal (or both!), but it led many to the obvious assumption that this cash was seized.
But, you know, LOL #otherpeoplesmoney and all that.
The foregone conclusion that this money had been seized was (momentarily) dispelled by another tweet from the TSAmedia_Lisa account.
TSA didn't seize/confiscate/take it. It alarmed the x-ray machine as an unknown and we spotted it. It's just a curiositySo, somehow a passenger managed to walk through airport security with a large amount of cash and managed to still be in possession of it on the DEPARTURE side of the checkpoint?
No. This is AMERICA, land of the somewhat free and home of the brave drug warrior.
A followup email to the Washington Post's Chris Ingraham proved TSAmedia_Lisa's (Farbstein) response was technically true and completely disingenuous.
Asked about the incident via e-mail, Farbstein said that "the carry-on bag of the passenger alarmed because of the large unknown bulk in his carry-on bag. When TSA officers opened the bag to determine what had caused the alarm, the money was sitting inside. Quite unusual. TSA alerted the airport police, who were investigating."It seems the police didn't just "investigate." They worked with another federal agency to take the money:
In this case, the cash was seized by a federal agency, most likely the Drug Enforcement Administration, according to Richmond airport spokesman Troy Bell. "I don't believe the person was issued a summons or a citation," he said. "The traveler was allowed to continue on his way."So Farbstein's claim about how it was "just a curiosity" is completely bogus. Not only was the photograph and putting it on social media a questionable invasion of privacy, but then they handed it off to another federal agency to take the money... and then the TSA clearly implied the opposite on social media once the story blew up.
It's not entirely clear which "federal agency" took the money, but a good guess is that the DEA is likely in possession of this "curiosity" now, thanks to its willingness to troll mass transportation departure points in search of "guilty" money.
Also ridiculous is the airport spokesperson noting that the traveler was allowed to "continue on his way," $75,000 lighter. As if that makes everything OK? If this money is completely unrelated to criminal activity, the government has just stolen money from one of its citizens. If it is linked to criminal activity, the traveler is probably in for a world of hurt if it belonged (or was owed) to someone else. Either way, the citizen loses, the government wins and the TSA badly mishandles another social media interaction.
So, the TSA's attempt at cheery lightheartedness did nothing more than once again expose its dark, humorless center. The tweet may as well have read "If you had $75,000, you don't have it any more! Just saying! #freemoney" One of the nation's most tone deaf agencies continues to prove it simply won't be outdone in this category. And the trickle of details confirmed what everyone was thinking the moment this picture hit the internet: that the person carrying that money was last in possession of it shortly before the photo was taken. The government gets its
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: asset seizure, cash, dea, public shaming, tsa
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Good, law abiding citizens use credit card and carry only patriotic gadgets inside bags, unlocked so law enforcement can do whatever they want, so if you have any money you don't have anymore. Now move along, nothing to see here, citizen.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That's structuring withdrawals!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Well if you were not aware that the government can steal your cash, you might think...
"Hmm, the airport has lots people with guns. And the plane I'll be on is very limited in people coming and going from the plane while in flight (except that DB Cooper guy). And there will be lots of people with guns at the place I land. Sounds very secure to transport my money."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Whatever happened to presumption of innocence?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Whatever happened to presumption of innocence?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Whatever happened to presumption of innocence?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Whatever happened to presumption of innocence?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just for fun...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Just for fun...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is fucking armed robbery!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What a relieve
What a relief to know the passenger was allowed to continue on their way. I am sure the passenger was just as relieved to be relieved of the burden of carrying around $75,000. Always glad to hear about happy endings.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What a relieve
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: What a relieve
They'll ask yet another government agency for that favor.
It's called structuring crimes so that not everything can be seen pinned to the same person/agency.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Gah!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Gah!
You just can't win.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "I will have the bank wire me about $5000 per month"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Gah!
Always consider repatriation risk, unless you aint coming back.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Gah!
Just transfer it all at once, and report it to the IRS
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Gah!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Gah!
(Hint: Ask your lawyer about “structuring”, and why you don't want the feds to accuse you of it.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Gah!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bitcoin
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Gah!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Just the idea that the government feels they can open an "investigation" based on whim really irritates me.
"We have looked into Mr. Passenger and concluded that there was no crime that took place. Since our investigation has shown that he broke no laws while engaging in his legal activity, we have returned his money. Less the admin fee."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
When is this going to stop?
"No person shall be ... deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law..."
IT IS FREAKING THE 5TH AMENDMENT! plainly there! obviously there!
I mean I can sorta kinda MAYBE understand freezing assets in a court case when they can linked to criminal activity and you are trying to recover them.
But to essentially steal property from somebody and not even charge them with a crime is outright plainly against the 5th amendment. How has the courts allowed this to stand!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: When is this going to stop?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: When is this going to stop?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: When is this going to stop?
It's the Prenda of law enforcement. :(
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: When is this going to stop?
"...nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
How does that not apply? They're taking the private property of citizens for (ostensibly) public use-- law enforcement purposes-- and not compensating them for it.
Since the Supreme Court has ruled that "just compensation" is fair market value, then the DEA should have to pay the fair market value for the $77,000 in cash that it took-- and fair market value on $77,000 in cash turns out to be $77,000.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: When is this going to stop?
That's funny, I don't really know anyone willing to pay $77k to get $77k in cash; I suspect market value is going to be lower.
(Not sure if being sarcastic or logical...)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: When is this going to stop?
See they aren't depriving _anyone_ of their constitutional rights (especially not the 5th amendment). The person wasn't seized, the money was. Money [unlike say a corporation] isn't citizen and therefore has no constitutional rights to violate.
There you go, nice, tidy, and above all, legal.
Until the courts strike down this legal fiction, along with that whole third party doctrine, and stop letting the government press charges against inanimate objects, the 5th amendment (as well as the 4th, and perhaps a few others) will be nothing more than a quaint idea.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: When is this going to stop?
This is failure of all three branches. The legislative branch should never have passed civil forfeiture laws, the executive shouldn't be using them whenever they see cash, and the judicial should be striking the laws down.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: When is this going to stop?
Two words: Drug War.
All the laws get tossed out the window with those two words, because no judge or politician has the guts to stand up and defend 'those filthy druggies', as it would be political suicide. Even if they do, the vast majority of politicians will immediately jump up and declare that they will never 'coddle' the druggies, and if a few laws need to be bent a little, or flat out broken to get them, then so be it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: When is this going to stop?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bribery
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Bribery
After all, they are just looking out for us poor citizens. They find criminal money following us around and "arrest" it before it can hurt us.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Typo
Adjusting for accuracy, headline should then be:
'TSA Asks America To LOL At Traveler Who Had $75,000 Stolen From Him By Federal Agents'
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Typo
"TSA Asks America To LOL At Traveler Who Had $75,000 Pirated From Him By Federal Agents"
Take the word back to what it used to mean, you know? With the added benefit that old-school piracy is one of the few crimes that is actually punishable by international law!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I let my neighbor borrow some tools. The moment that neighbor brings armed thugs and a privately run prison for me to live in if I don't comply, that is when letting leaves the equation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Actually you are [letting the government walk all over you] they are called the DEA.
As far as I understand we have no rights to resist the will of the DEA or any other law enforcement agency except after the fact.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You know, I suspect they WILL know when they've encountered dirty (criminal) money...
Last I checked, if you are carrying money for the mob (any mob) and the amount doesn't balance, they feed you to the factory's tooling machines unless the sharks are peckish.
So when the person set free comes back with a gun or a bomb and kills the seizing officer (or someone at random in the precinct) that's how they'll know they actually used the civil forfeiture laws for the purpose for which they were intended.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Well, time to find a new use for all of those pennies nobody likes.
If the DEA wants to take my $75k in pennies, they're more than welcomed to.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What happened to Probable Cause?
Note that for cash it has "This note is legal tender for all debts public and private", whereas a check (or other means of money transfer) doesn't; there is no reason for anyone to gainsay why a person is carrying cash: all debts public and private means the reason can be private.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Is internet commentary their job now?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
PSA?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is not new at all
They did over 5 million in one year, as in 2010.
A "receipt" was given & if they could produce a paper trail for the money, it was supposedly returned. He claimed that no one ever carries large amounts of cash that's legitimate. He was quite proud of their work.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This is not new at all
I suspect that's a big part of the problem.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This is not new at all
How does someone produce a paper trail for money tucked under the mattress over many years?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
WOW this is widespread
Seriously, this is insane. CVG did 3 million last year?!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So the criminals are blaming the victims.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Using cash is considered a warning sign that a person should be suspected of domestic terrorism by the DHS I kid you not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Whereas $50 notes in the USA are looked upon with suspicion as the cash machines hand out only $20 notes. How backwards is that when you take out $500 at a time to save exorbitant overseas transaction charges that your bank & credit card company charge.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Drug War. . .
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Drug War. . .
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Drug War. . .
Obviously, because who is going to profit from them?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Calling a spade a spade
Well, it's teamwork. In American Football, the quarterback does not try scoring. Instead he passes the ball to the big bad uglies who then make a run for the end zone. If nothing else works, they'll kick the living shit out of the ball and/or pass it off to the next big bad ugly.
Don't give the defense a single target. Instead, split the crime into multiple less conspicuous parts.
That's structured high way robbery. You wouldn't expect less from an organized crime syndicate, now would you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
There goes the ransom money
This would highten the tension in the Hollywood movie cliche, the risk of a briefcase full of cash being seized before or after the handoff.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: There goes the ransom money
In fact, that would be a great motion picture right there. Winnfield is outnumbered and outgunned by police when they seize the briefcase. Now the Bad Motherfucker has to go and get it back.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The rest of the story
That does not excuse the TSA for taking the picture, or posting it nor glossing over their involvement in this case. It is not a crime to carry cash. No matter what the numbskull in this article says:
http://wtkr.com/2015/07/01/tsa-seizes-75000-in-cash-from-richmond-passenger-and-he-may-not-get- it-back/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Us Against Them...
The Asset Forfeiture Program is an integral law enforcement tool that benefits the Postal Inspection Service by:
1. punishing criminals by taking the profit out of criminal activity,
2. preserving the forfeited assets for identified victims whenever possible,
3, increasing revenue for law enforcement purposes, and
4. providing an enhanced 'esprit de corps' among law enforcement through equitable sharing.
It really is "us" against "them".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]