It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
An “investigative summary” posted this month by the Justice Department’s inspector general criticizes the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) for hiring a federal airport security screener to help find seizable cash in passengers’ luggage. Under the arrangement, the DEA designated the screener a “confidential source” and promised him a cut of any money he found while rummaging through people’s bags.
So not only did the TSA agent get paid for facilitating what basically amounts to federal theft, but he was incentivized to find “suspicious” money because the more he found, the more he’d earn. The DEA could not have come up with a more unethical situation if they’d tried. The good news is that the DOJ investigators agree, noting that TSA agents are already supposed to report anything illegal they see in the course of their duties, so there was no justification for this arrangement in the first place. Furthermore, the set-up violated the DEA’s own department rules—not to mention “individuals’ protection against unreasonable searches and seizures.”
And we’re talking big money. “Between 2004 and 2009, Philadelphia collected some $36 million via civil forfeiture,”mainly from young, black men. Long Island police took in $31 million in a single year. The State of Virginia seized assets and cash worth more than $18 million in 2013 alone. In the same year, Michigan’s civil asset forfeiture profits topped $16 million, and the State of Texas took a whopping $106 million from its citizens. In fact, in 2014 federal agents used civil asset forfeiture to confiscate more money and property from Americans than burglars took
A Department of Justice watchdog officially condemned the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration this month, following a report that the agency had recruited a Transportation Security Administration security screener to search bags for cash that the DEA could confiscate.
The very existence of such a partnership highlights much broader concerns about the controversial legal practice known as civil asset forfeiture, which critics say contorts law enforcement priorities and props up a system of policing for profit.
In a summary of its investigation, the DOJ's Office of the Inspector General concluded that the agreement "violated DEA policy" on a number of levels. While the OIG determined that the TSA informant never provided any actionable information to the DEA, it concluded that the plans to pay the agent out of the cash he or she helped seize "could have violated individuals’ protection against unreasonable searches and seizures if it led to a subsequent DEA enforcement action."
originally posted by: liveandlearn
a reply to: FamCore
I saw this earlier today and it made me so angry I wouldn't post because I didn't want to be reminded by replying...protecting my stress level here.
Wondering how they would get your money if we were cashless? They already have the bank reporting excess money withdrawn. Maybe tighten it up?
So not only did the TSA agent get paid for facilitating what basically amounts to federal theft, but he was incentivized to find “suspicious” money because the more he found, the more he’d earn. The DEA could not have come up with a more unethical situation if they’d tried. The good news is that the DOJ investigators agree, noting that TSA agents are already supposed to report anything illegal they see in the course of their duties, so there was no justification for this arrangement in the first place. Furthermore, the set-up violated the DEA’s own department rules—not to mention “individuals’ protection against unreasonable searches and seizures.”
Transportation hubs are a particular point of focus for the DEA. A 2015 OIG report found that from 2009 to 2013, the DEA seized $163 million in 4,138 individual cash seizures, many of which were contested and later overturned. The agency has also come under fire in recent cases that involved agents seizing cash from airline and train passengers, and in some cases, allegedly shaking them down.
originally posted by: ReadLeader
a reply to: nullafides
Not to derail, but a thread started by you about your experiences with both, or one of the agencies would be fascinating Null !!
Both mentioned are despicable