Watched a show about DHS at JFK recently

[Rastoff]

What I saw rocked me to my core.

This was a show, like COPS, about the TSA/DHS at the JFK airport in New York. The cameras followed these TSA guys around as they nabbed different suspected drug traffickers. They followed them as they apprehended three suspected drug traffickers. Two had actually done nothing, but one got caught carrying drugs.

Here's the scary part, every one of them was detained and searched, to include an x-ray, without any probable cause. They didn't even mention probable cause in the show.

As one guy deplaned, they asked, "How many bags did you bring with you?" His response was, "Just this one." Because he was coming from Ecuador and didn't have any checked bags, they grabbed him, locked him in a room and interrogated him for a few hours. All because he only had one carry-on bag with him.

His passport was valid, he was a US citizen and they found nothing illegal in his bag or on his person. He wasn't drunk or high. He wasn't belligerent or argumentative and his story was normal. One TSA agent said that his claim of not having seen his family in Ecuador for 5 years was suspicious. I don't know about you, but I can't afford to fly to foreign countries every year.

I can't even count the number of times I've traveled with nothing more than a carry-on. I've stayed for more than a week at places and not needed more than I could stuff in one bag. Really? No checked bags means you're a criminal?

In the end this one guy did have drugs. So what? The ends don't justify the means. The other two guys got the same treatment and didn't have any drugs.

I can't think of a more blatant and heinous violation of the 4th amendment. The ends don't justify the means. These guys are far overstepping their authority.

 

[Old TexMex]

They probably did it for the cameras. Bad stuff, for sure. I fly back and forth to Mexico all the time, and sometimes it's a one way ticket (red flag right there)from Mex because I go down on the private jet w/ the family I work for. Hardly ever have checked bags, either. Never been accosted, usually go through the quick line that skips customs. But I have heard of that happening at LAX to expats visiting family in California.

Customs and Immigration officers have always been courteous, but it only takes one with a bad attitude.


It ain't right.

 

[EdnAZ]

I think that you should pay better attention next time.

The show you were watching didn't feature TSA, it was Customs and Border Protection and Immigration and Customs Enforcement / Homeland Security Investigations.

"Border Search" authority of designated US Customs Officers is an exception to the 4th amendment warrant requiremen. Probable cause is also not required, although different levels of suspicion are utilized depend on the degree of invasiveness.

If you don't agree with the border search exemption then take it up with the founding fathers.

You do realize that, although, you think you know everything that is going on in the show, it is edited for TV........

 

[Rastoff]

Ok, yeah, I got the title of the agency wrong. So what? Still part of DHS. Still no probable cause.

I just read the 4th amendment again. I don't see the "Border Search" exception you mention. Maybe it's in some other document?

 

[okiegtrider]

Did a little search on the subject...

"Unless exempt by diplomatic status, all travelers entering the United States, including U.S. citizens, participate in routine Customs processing. At times, people make the mistake of thinking their civil rights are being violated by being asked questions about their trip, personal background and history, etc. That is not the case. Supreme Court decisions have upheld the doctrine that CBP's search authority is unique and does not violate the fourth amendment's protection against unreasonable searches and seizures."

https://help.cbp.gov/app/answers/detail/a_id/176/~/cbp-search-authority

 

[Harleystoo]

I wish our borders and nationality were better protected.

 

[LVSteve]

As one guy deplaned, they asked, "How many bags did you bring with you?" His response was, "Just this one." Because he was coming from Ecuador and didn't have any checked bags, they grabbed him, locked him in a room and interrogated him for a few hours. All because he only had one carry-on bag with him.

Customs officials all over the world don't like long distance travelers without checked bags and just one carry on. I did it once on a quick in and out to London Gatwick leaving Saturday PM from Vegas and returning Wednesday AM from London. All I got from security folks at both ends was, "Wow, that's brutal".

My Dad used to get the stink eye for traveling light from England to visit me for 2-3 weeks. Dad would tell them he had clothes at my place and chose not to schlep them back and forth across the Atlantic. Sometimes Dad would get a "Good plan" or "Guess Vegas clothes don't work with English weather", but now and again he got the "not convinced" grunt. Still, he was never taken aside for extra measures.

 

[cowart]

Because he was coming from Ecuador and didn't have any checked bags, they grabbed him, locked him in a room and interrogated him for a few hours. All because he only had one carry-on bag with him.

Thats a contradictory statement. If he had come from from some other country, he probably would have received much less scrutiny. The Ecuador connection when combined with the limited baggage is the source of his problem.

Ecuador has legalized possession of small amounts of cannabis, heroin and cocaine.

https://thejointblog.com/small-amounts-of-drugs-decriminalized-in-ecuador

 

[PatriotX]

Profiling and behavior-based interdiction policies exist for one reason: they generally work.

Ask the Israelis.

 

[EdnAZ]

Ok, yeah, I got the title of the agency wrong. So what? Still part of DHS. Still no probable cause.

I just read the 4th amendment again. I don't see the "Border Search" exception you mention. Maybe it's in some other document?

Well for starters two of them are law enforcement and one is not.

Obviously you have issues with reading comprehension as well; I'm not sure where in the 4th amendment it states that probable cause is required for searches. Would you be so kind to highlight that point?

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

I do see where the 4th prohibits "unreasonable searches", and "no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause.." Neither of which are the same as your statement.

Honestly, this is junior high civics (at best). Sometimes a prudent person needs to think "wow am I really that much smarter than every judge and defense and civil rights attorney". No, no you aren't.

BTW the Customs Service was established by the fifth act of congress. Truly do some research on your own, and if you want an educated debate, let me know. This is way too simplistic for me spend any time on. I know that sounds rude (sorry) but it's really a basic and well established (over 225 years now) authority.

 

[Rastoff]

Customs officials all over the world don't like long distance travelers without checked bags and just one carry on. I did it once on a quick in and out to London Gatwick leaving Saturday PM from Vegas and returning Wednesday AM from London. All I got from security folks at both ends was, "Wow, that's brutal".

I've traveled from Europe with only a carry on several times. Of course that was years ago and a different era. Still, it never elicited any questions from any agent.

This is way too simplistic for me spend any time on.

Yet you chose to spend time on it in an attempt to belittle and insult me?

Indeed this was started to discuss the issues I observed on a TV show. Lots of us come here to discuss lots of issues. There are any number of ways you could have responded to the OP yet you chose to take the way of insults and arrogance.

The necessity of probable cause is in the 4th amendment. You posted yourself how probable cause is linked with the necessity of a Warrant. There may be other laws, of which I'm not familiar, that grant certain agencies special privileges. I'm not a lawyer and never claimed to be. I saw something that seemed wrong to me and came here to discuss it.

Most of the people on this site are willing to discuss things in a rational manner; I guess your not. Too bad your ego won't allow you to condescend to be a part of the discussion. It sounded like you might have something to add. Even so, I'm glad that this is not worth your time and we won't have to listen to your egotism anymore.


okiegtrider,
Thanks for the link. I didn't know that.