Airline informant received thousands from passenger cash seizures | Hacker News Reader

Airline informant received thousands from passenger cash seizures

atlantanewsfirst.com

206 pointssoraminazuki78 comments

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.

This needs to come to an unqualified stop.

That's a bit strange because the machine scanning you at the airport can see cash... At least US cash.. it has a hard time with crypto though.

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.

In some cases it could be as flimsy as they were pacing nervously while black: https://www.aclu.org/news/criminal-law-reform/deas-cold-cons...

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.

Feels like a general police stop abuse in a new context: You're free to go as long as you don't actually try to go, because exercising your rights makes you "suspicious."

"You can decline to consent, but you'll miss your flight because we'll detain you for an hour". It's so clear that no one can meaningfully "consent" in a situation where one person has the power to deeply fuck you over like that.

It’s not consent if you’re not allowed to say no.

> it could be as flimsy as they were pacing nervously while black

Judging by the picture on the poster's website, I doubt being black had much to do with it: https://josephscott.org/

That was an example to illustrate how little basis they needed for these searches in previous cases, not intended to be a guess for what the reason the person at the start of this thread was stopped.

The point is, this whole "cold consensual search" policy was based on nothing other than the officer's personal opinion for who should be approached and searched; because it was theoretically "consensual", they didn't need any kind of basis for making the determination.

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.

Yes, and people right here on HN will often defend such rules because "if the rules are known, people might comply with them". The secrecy and ambiguity often are the point as it allows the powerful to attack the weak under the guise of legality.

It's a one of least-resistance solutions to integrity/interpretation problem. Good integrity is expected but most people don't think like programmer-lawyer-surgeons, so it's an impossible goal. Overly strict rules are in fact detrimental in many ways too. Obscuring the rules obscure all those problems.

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.

> there must be some reason

b/c it looked to the agent like he had cash in his backpack

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

Good work that news organisation and that fellow who stood up to the DEA.

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).

Wasn't surprised when I noticed Brendan Keefe is the journalist/investigator on this story. He's got solid track record and credentials.

Years ago, someone well-known quipped that the biggest gang in Chicago was the police.

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.

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.

> 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.

Very, very well said.

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)

ACAB.

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.)

Someone needs to make a phone a lawyer service where you can just put a lawyer on speaker, they record everything and argue with cops.

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.

ACLU has a mobile app that backs up to the cloud and resists evidence tampering. At least there’s a tamperproof record.

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.

>“I am directing that the DEA suspend conducting consensual encounters,”

They weren't consensual.

Also, you're gonna return the cash, right?

Also, you're gonna fire the people responsible for the program, right?

Also, you're gonna criminally charge them for civil rights violations, right?

>The directive was an immediate response to a report from the Justice Department Inspector General that was set in motion by Atlanta News First Investigates. The award-winning investigation, In Plane Sight, has been viewed millions of times on YouTube.

...that youtube video was released nearly a full year ago. Immediate response, my ass. she could have paused the program immediately, pending the outcome of the investigation, after seeing the video and verifying a few bits of information.

> The Justice Department Inspector General reopened a decades-long investigation of the Operation Jetway program

Why did it take decades, and why was it closed?

> “When we began our investigation and asked for the paperwork, that’s when, months later, they started creating paperwork trying to lay out why they did what they did,” Horowitz added.

So they were charged with falsifying records / evidence, obstruction, and lying to investigators, right?

"We have investigated ourselves and done the bare minimum to give people the impression we did something."

Do you think the Justice Department didn't know about this before the story broke? Or did they take action only because the story became public?

Most countries have limits on the amount of cash transaction (for good reasons) (EDIT: or bad reasons if you don't like the government :shrug:) but I have not heard of carry limits and seizures like that... Maybe in those countries they count on the fact that if a transaction is too large both sides risk that the other one will snitch to law enforcement?

What are the good reasons? I can understand one party not wanting to deal with a large amount of cash. But the government shouldn't have any say in how much cash you use.

Usually such restrictions are defended as being necessary to ensure the government gets their cut of the action and to keep criminals from being able to easily handle the fruits of their law breaking.

It's mostly for money laundering reasons.

Probably to force people keep money in the bank where all transactions are visible to the govt and arresting the money requires just several clicks.

Or you know so that if someone kidnaps your wife and gets a mil in ransom or sells enough hard drugs to kids he can't just go buy a yacht and casually sail away to Fiji

In that scenario, where your wife is dead if you don't pay the ransom, is it good that the government stops you from paying the ransom?

Maybe, because if the government stops everyone from paying ransoms, there is no point demanding a ransom. The person whose wife is being held as a hostage probably won't see it that way.

> is it good that the government stops you from paying the ransom

The government does not hover a drone with you at all times that counts your cash and stops you. But are two sides to every transaction. if transaction breaks the law any side can go to the law enforcement. Depending on country they may get a bonus for this too.

Now please picture me how your wife's kidnapper goes to the police saying that the ransom you paid exceeded $10k.

Crimes are brought by the government once it discovers the crime, not by anyone. Anyone can provide evidence to the government that a crime was committed.

Correct. Now please picture me how your wife's kidnapper goes to the police saying that the ransom you paid exceeded $10k.

Someone who did a much more serious crime is not gonna go to law enforcement because his ass is going to be the one charged considering the circumstances.

But if a massive cash transaction is illegal good luck kidnapper doing stuff with a bulk of ransom money. Hey it may even put him off that whole kidnapping idea yeah? Or at least get him caught so he doesn't kidnap more people somewhere else

I’ve never heard of a legal limit for paying in cash. The AML rules require people to have an explanation of where the cash comes from, but there’s no limit on it. Of course there’s no requirement to accept cash except in the case of paying a debt.

Here in New Zealand there are maximum limits on the number of coins you can use so paying your tax with a truckload of 10¢ coins is illegal, but if you use $100 notes you can use as many as you like.

EU max limit is 10k

in Russia max limit is 1k EUR equivalent https://base.garant.ru/58074419/#:~:text=%D0%9F%D1%80%D0%B5%...).

apparently in NZ 10k limit is only for some transactions https://www.dia.govt.nz/AML-CFT-High-value-dealers-Prohibite... hope you didn't pay in cash more than that for a boat recently;)

France max limit for individuals purchasing from professionals or businesses is 1k EUR except for a few edge cases.

https://www.service-public.fr/particuliers/vosdroits/F10999

Huh, I failed to find the NZ page. My search skills must be getting rusty... thanks for the link!

For entering or leaving the country. Was this case an internal flight? If so then what money an individual has in their possession is their business, and nobody else's.

For entering or leaving there's customs... this is something different

I know I'm gonna' sound like a broken record, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41563553 but civil forfeiture should be unlawful and is most assuredly unconstitutional.

We need a modern test for the "bridging jurisprudence" to take it to SCOTUS.

Oh, wait...

The DEA should be disbanded and all these agents fired and pensions deleted from existence.

They said there were no records because the DEA didn't keep any for searches that yielded no drugs.

How were subjected passengers not lobbing hundreds of complaints on their own or filing more small claims suits? As a society, expecting an agency to keep its own records on its own malfeasance seems naive.

In many countries the police will ask for bribes but they will not take all the money you have on you, there is still a distinction between the police and thieves.

Not in the US they can legally take all the money you have on you.

Searches without a warrant. Seizing cash and property without charging a crime. The US has being doing this stuff for years, like any corrupt banana republic.

Do better, guys.

If by "for years" you mean "since its inception" then yes, 100% agree.

Holy shit, meaningful investigative reporting in the year of our lord 2024?

Someone hire these guys to do this full time!

You could call it journalism!

There have been countless investigative reports regarding law enforcement seizing cash from innocent citizens and the government hasn't budged. What's new is that law enforcement are giving kickbacks to Airline employees. So we knew about the robberies, but not the bribery.

> the government hasn't budged

then maybe we should budge the government?

ACAB

I know plenty folk who spent their entire lives in prison over nonviolent drug charges. Or who had their life savings confisgated.

Every living person involved in this disgusting program and the larger war on drugs should be rounded up and tied to the ground in front of every major US prison, so that they can be stampeded to death when every nonviolent drug offender is simultaneously released and given soccer cleats.

In a healthy democracy, justice and revenge are clearly separable. When the walls start falling down, they become one and the same. We all better strap in for a wild ride over the next 4 years as our democracy is systematically dismantled by billionaires. They better strap in as well.

Every single person involved in this operation through the entire chain of command should be dismissed, named publicly, and barred from any future law enforcement role and face criminal charges. All victims should get complete restitution, and the assets of offenders should be used to finance additional compensation. Ditto for all other instances of armed robbery committed by law enforcement, whether they branded it as “civil asset forfeiture” or some other bureaucratic euphemism.

This isn't even radical.

Armed robbery is the flattest, least hyperbolic, actually nicest way to label it, because a normal armed robber doesn't get to do it in broad daylight in front of witnesses behind a badge. The victims can at least hope to maybe call the police on a normal armed robber.

Being the police while doing it really deserves some whole extra order of magnitude of consequences.

How is this any different to auditors or penetration testers doing a crap job? The payment might be in the form of bonuses or more work billed, but it’s just not realistic.

How is it in any way similar?

Because auditors and penetration testers, even incompetent ones, are not government employees violating anyone's 4th amendment rights.

According to the final paragraph of the article, Nicholas Nimeskern remains employed in law enforcement.

As always and will get promoted in a few months.

Traveling in the US has become so burdensome. By air? In addition to full body Xray, Xray of carryons, and taking off shoes, waiting in lines. There was this added risk of random search and asset seizure.

By car? If you live within 100 miles of USA border there’s likely interior checkpoints. Often times they just wave you on but it still impedes flow of highway traffic. Occasionally they do the dog and pony show of asking if you are citizen or not. Additionally, a metric shit ton of cameras installed at entrance. Likely as part of quasi legal facial recognition operation and license plate tracking.

Air travel is like that everywhere, not in the US only.

And the 100-mile checkpoint thing is complete nonsense. I've lived within 100 miles of USA border for 25+ years, I drive all the time. I have never been stopped by this "border check". I haven't even met anyone who was stopped by them. Sure, it probably happens occasionally, but it's not "burdensome" to an average driver, because it's not a thing.

Just out of curiosity... 100 miles of /which/ US border?

Tell me you have never lived in or near the southern border of USA without telling me directly ;)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com