{"id":4020,"date":"2010-05-16T18:47:05","date_gmt":"2010-04-03T07:56:19","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2010-04-03T07:56:19","slug":"en-US","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=4020","title":{"rendered":"D.Minn.: TSA instigated cash seizure was without reasonable suspicion"},"content":{"rendered":"

Claimant was relieved of $90,000 in cash at the MSP airport after TSA called the airport police. Claimant was preselected for a more intense screening on the issuance of the boarding pass [apparently \u201cSSSS\u201d on it]. The x-ray revealed an opaque object, so TSA opened the bag, finding the cash. TSA\u2019s questions did not raise reasonable suspicion. The airport police took him away for questioning and that was without reasonable suspicion. TSA and the airport police found his story suspicious, but the court did not. The motion to suppress the cash is granted. A dog alert to the cash was well after the seizure [aside from being meaningless]. United States v. $90,000 in United States Currency, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 31818 (D. Minn. March 31, 2010), USMJ R&R, United States v. $90,000 in United States Currency, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 126396 (D. Minn. September 22, 2009). [What about TSA reporting cash? It\u2019s none of their damn business. What does cash have to do with air transportation security?] Update:<\/strong> TSA’s blog has an April 2009 post<\/a> about calling the police about cash. On Gadling.com is this post with video<\/a>, Fox, too<\/a>, about a cash seizure of $4,700. My prior post about a TSA cash seizure is here<\/a>.<\/p>\n

2255 is denied because the copies of the search warrant petitioner obtained under a state FOIA request were redacted, and that does not mean that the original was unsigned. United States v. Askew, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 32048 (W.D. Pa. April 1, 2010).*<\/p>\n

Defendant\u2019s motion for return of two items of property under Rule 41(g) that were seized during his arrest is denied where the return of property does not show them. United States v. Somerville, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 32101 (D.N.J. April 1, 2010).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"pingsdone","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-4020","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4020","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=4020"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4020\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=4020"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=4020"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=4020"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}