I ran into this exact issue trying to board a flight from the USA to Tokyo, a number of years ago. About 2 steps from getting on the plane a plain clothes cop pulled me aside and searched my luggage. The only thing he asked about, repeatedly, was if I was carrying cash. Fortunately for me, I was not. After he made sure to go through everything I had he let me get on the plane.
When the only thing he was concerned about is if I had any cash on me, it sure felt like an attempted robbery. He never asked about drugs or anything else illegal I might have had.
Though you probably will never know why, there must be some reason why you were identified as someone who is likely carrying large amounts of cash. Wonder what criteria they're using and how many civil rights violations they've bundled into it.
Because they claim that these are "consensual", they claim that they don't need any particular criteria for an encounter, but of course the "consent" was not ever really freely given here, they would either trick or bully people into giving consent.
One of the most worrying patterns for me, in both government and any sufficiently large corporation, is the idea of secret rules and dishonor without explanation or appeal.
I was once asked whether I was carrying large sums of cash at Oslo airport. I think the only reason they asked me was because there was literally nobody else in sight.
I was in my early twenties and broke af. I was wearing jeans with huge holes in them and shoes that were more duct tape than shoe.
I showed them all the cash I had on me: 3 coins. 2 of them had holes in them.
I don't think that's always true. I was stuck in a TSA line once that hadn't moved for about 30 mins and I was stopped right next to a security officer. He told me he had to pick someone as the line wasn't moving.
When he took me in his room he said "You can have an x-ray, or the other search" by which he was insinuating needing gloves. I took the x-ray and he said "Well, if it's any consolation for the radiation I'm putting you on the other side of that security line, which would have been about another two hours from the looks of it." o_O
Its a system. I think Frontline did a episode about it. There are even consulting companies that will teach police what to look for to maximum asset forfeiture gains like types of cars, best with out of state plates (so its harder for them to come back to the local courts to appeal), etc etc. None of it was about preventing crimes, all of it was about maximizing profits - much of which they can keep and spend as they like without any oversight.
I used to spend a lot of time hanging out in forfeiture court in Chicago. On the first day for a new judge she brought the State's Attorney's to the bench and said (loudly) "You guys win almost every case here because nobody can even figure out the paperwork to dispute your claims. That ends today. I won't allow that in this courtroom."
That same day they had a case where a son had taken the keys to his dad's brand new SUV and got caught driving drunk and the State were trying to sell the car. The judge said "Did this man know his son had the keys? No. Does he have valid insurance and license? Yes. Give this man his car back. Refund him all his costs and fees."
(for info, most of the time if you even file the most basic paperwork to challenge a forfeiture the State will drop it since they have a thousand easier cases to work on)
These cops, like literal generations of cops before them, work in a system that financially and socially rewards and reinforces this behavior.
We need to stop thinking about cops as the good guys by default, and really start examining the systems that we've built to give them power. Especially unchecked power like this where they can train a dog to mark on a bag, use that training to get probable cause, and then steal whatever they want within the bag.
It's not just a few bad apples, it's a systemic issue that needs systemic fixes. Because if you put most humans in a position where they can get tens of thousands of dollars a year, without consequence, and be told they are heroes for doing so... it's going to be difficult to resist. We need to sharply cut back on police power, sharply cut back on police presence (do we really need DEA agents "cold checking" airline passengers because they bought a ticket late?)
Had something similar happen to me. Due to missing my train, and needing to rebook on short notice, I was flagged by an Amtrak insider and searched repeatedly on the way from Chicago to San Francisco.
First search I consented to, as it's a condition of Amtrak passage. By the time cops were approaching me again for more inspection on a train platform in Reno, I was really burnt out and furious at the loss of the fourth amendment in this country.
It should be illegal for companies to violate their privacy policies and leak traveller information like this.
Been through the airport shenanigans enough; collected DEA cards like they was Pokémon. Glad to see them do away with this practice. DEA could definitely use more checks and balance structure with their history of warrantless taps, gps tracking, stingrays, parallel construction (obscuring the true source of where information came from denying those charged the ability to challenge and defend themselves properly.)
I've given some thought to this ... I privately term it a "legal bat signal".
It would not be a phone nor an app - instead, it would be a very distinctive object that would be difficult and expensive to mock up and it would function as a one-way alert: if triggered, an actual lawyer races to your physical location. The trigger would be un-cancelable.
Instead of tying it to your own, specific lawyer, there would be broad agreements that any lawyer could enter into placing them "on-call" for a legal-bat-signal and then the closest (and fastest) one gets the call.
This is quite dystopic, however: basically, very rich people would have a (figurative) hand-grenade that they could pull out and dare LEOs to make them press it.
Further: persons with resources represent one of the best sources of pressure to change these systemic problems. If persons with resources exempt themselves from this kind of overreach then we lose that pressure.
Jesus christ, that video is so fucking infuriating.
The absolute disdain that that cop has for constitutional rights is appalling.
And what's more appalling is that this kind of thing happens so much; that there's nothing stopping it. Cops seize property with no justification all the time, and there's so little recourse.
Sure, occasionally a program like this might be stopped, but there's nothing stopping them from starting it back up again in a slightly different form.
They spend years seizing money from thousands of people and paying kickbacks for it; maybe some of the folks were doing it for illicit purpose, maybe some weren't, it's hard to know because there's no due process of law, civil forfeiture just lets cops take money from people on the flimsiest of suspicion.
The 4th amendment is meaningless as long as civil asset forfeiture exists.
Readit News
When the only thing he was concerned about is if I had any cash on me, it sure felt like an attempted robbery. He never asked about drugs or anything else illegal I might have had.
This needs to come to an unqualified stop.
Because they claim that these are "consensual", they claim that they don't need any particular criteria for an encounter, but of course the "consent" was not ever really freely given here, they would either trick or bully people into giving consent.
When he took me in his room he said "You can have an x-ray, or the other search" by which he was insinuating needing gloves. I took the x-ray and he said "Well, if it's any consolation for the radiation I'm putting you on the other side of that security line, which would have been about another two hours from the looks of it." o_O
b/c it looked to the agent like he had cash in his backpack
Sad that both of the above needed to happen, but damn glad to see the Fourth Estate still holding the government to account (to some extent).
I've read reporting on civil asset forfeiture abuse for many years -- the inclusion of "abuse" composing a tautology, it increasingly appears.
Nonetheless, it remains active policy appearing in ever more circumstances.
People argue that it's only a few bad cops who make the rest look bad. I'm having increasing difficulty these days believing that argument.
That same day they had a case where a son had taken the keys to his dad's brand new SUV and got caught driving drunk and the State were trying to sell the car. The judge said "Did this man know his son had the keys? No. Does he have valid insurance and license? Yes. Give this man his car back. Refund him all his costs and fees."
(for info, most of the time if you even file the most basic paperwork to challenge a forfeiture the State will drop it since they have a thousand easier cases to work on)
Very, very well said.
These cops, like literal generations of cops before them, work in a system that financially and socially rewards and reinforces this behavior.
We need to stop thinking about cops as the good guys by default, and really start examining the systems that we've built to give them power. Especially unchecked power like this where they can train a dog to mark on a bag, use that training to get probable cause, and then steal whatever they want within the bag.
It's not just a few bad apples, it's a systemic issue that needs systemic fixes. Because if you put most humans in a position where they can get tens of thousands of dollars a year, without consequence, and be told they are heroes for doing so... it's going to be difficult to resist. We need to sharply cut back on police power, sharply cut back on police presence (do we really need DEA agents "cold checking" airline passengers because they bought a ticket late?)
First search I consented to, as it's a condition of Amtrak passage. By the time cops were approaching me again for more inspection on a train platform in Reno, I was really burnt out and furious at the loss of the fourth amendment in this country.
It should be illegal for companies to violate their privacy policies and leak traveller information like this.
It would not be a phone nor an app - instead, it would be a very distinctive object that would be difficult and expensive to mock up and it would function as a one-way alert: if triggered, an actual lawyer races to your physical location. The trigger would be un-cancelable.
Instead of tying it to your own, specific lawyer, there would be broad agreements that any lawyer could enter into placing them "on-call" for a legal-bat-signal and then the closest (and fastest) one gets the call.
This is quite dystopic, however: basically, very rich people would have a (figurative) hand-grenade that they could pull out and dare LEOs to make them press it.
Further: persons with resources represent one of the best sources of pressure to change these systemic problems. If persons with resources exempt themselves from this kind of overreach then we lose that pressure.
The absolute disdain that that cop has for constitutional rights is appalling.
And what's more appalling is that this kind of thing happens so much; that there's nothing stopping it. Cops seize property with no justification all the time, and there's so little recourse.
Sure, occasionally a program like this might be stopped, but there's nothing stopping them from starting it back up again in a slightly different form.
They spend years seizing money from thousands of people and paying kickbacks for it; maybe some of the folks were doing it for illicit purpose, maybe some weren't, it's hard to know because there's no due process of law, civil forfeiture just lets cops take money from people on the flimsiest of suspicion.
The 4th amendment is meaningless as long as civil asset forfeiture exists.