Federal Confiscation Reflects Mission Creep and the Expanding Police State

by | Feb 26, 2020

Federal Confiscation Reflects Mission Creep and the Expanding Police State

by | Feb 26, 2020

Screen Shot 2020 02 26 At 7.33.50 Am

In 2019, the Transportation Security Administration seized $181,000 in cash from an employee of a Tampa trucking company while he was going through a TSA checkpoint for a flight from Tampa to Cleveland. According to the employee and his employer, the worker was taking the cash to Cleveland to buy second-hand trucks for his company. The company says that cash transactions for these types of purchases are common in their industry.

The company is now suing TSA and U.S. Customs and Border Protection to recover its confiscated money. Meanwhile, TSA and Customs are claiming the cash was somehow involved in unspecified illegal activity and was legitimately seized. The Tampa Bay Times reports, “The company contends it proved the cash was not tied to illegal activities. The lawsuit also contends authorities violated the U.S. Constitution’s Fourth Amendment for warrantless searches and seizures during prolonged detentions.”

One issue here is the nature of civil asset forfeiture, which assumes the accused are guilty unless they can prove themselves innocent. I could go on an extended rant about this, but I won’t, because most readers of The Beacon are likely aware of this outrageous abuse of due process.

Rather, I’m questioning why these two agencies are even involved in this case. According to the TSA website, the agency’s mission is to “Protect the nation’s transportation systems to ensure freedom of movement for people and commerce.” First, I would question why anyone carrying $181,000 in cash would be considered a threat to the nation’s transportation system. Sure, if you’re carrying scissors or a bottle of water, the TSA sees you as a threat to the nation’s transportation system. But cash? Where’s the threat?

Plus, the TSA says its mission includes ensuring the freedom of movement for people and commerce, yet when someone is trying to buy $181,000 worth of second-hand trucks, the agency isn’t ensuring freedom of movement for commerce, it is preventing commerce.

Then there’s the involvement of Customs and Border Patrol. The traveler was going from Tampa to Cleveland, a domestic trip. Customs and Border Patrol is way overstepping its mission by intervening in domestic travel.

So yes, civil asset forfeiture is a gross violation of the civil rights our nation was formed to protect, but this case is even more egregious because the seizure was undertaken by two federal agencies that appear to have acted far outside their intended scopes of authority.

Reprinted from the Independent Institute.

Randall Holcombe

Randall Holcombe

View all posts

Our Books

libertarian inst books

Related Articles

Related

TGIF: What Free Market in Health Care?

TGIF: What Free Market in Health Care?

Contrary to a popular article of faith, America has no free market in health care—far from it. Consider this: the largest lobby in Washington, D.C., is—wait for it—the health care and health insurance industries. Last year, they spent 5.8 times the amount the...

read more
A Critique of Practical Hasbara

A Critique of Practical Hasbara

Immanuel Kant published The Critique of Pure Reason in 1781. It was the same year the Rebel Alliance triumphed at Yorktown, Virginia. The victory at Yorktown made possible the decline of the British “liberal” empire and the eventual rise of Washinton DCs “non-empire”...

read more
The Switzerland Summit: Peace Through Delusion

The Switzerland Summit: Peace Through Delusion

Ukraine has been at war for over ten years, and even the political establishment wipeout in the European elections has not managed to shock the Western ruling class back into coherence. Nothing could provide a clearer example of their clownish nature than the recent...

read more
Smashing the UK’s Statist Mindset

Smashing the UK’s Statist Mindset

Mainstream British political thought processes contain an epidemic of dreadful reasoning. Witness the average political interaction between “popular” British parliamentarians and voters, think through the reasoning of the topics discussed, and you will know exactly...

read more
Will Trump Learn from Bump Stock Battering?

Will Trump Learn from Bump Stock Battering?

The Supreme Court last Friday struck down one of the most controversial gun control edicts in recent years. The ruling on bump stocks is being widely hailed as a victory for an expansive reading of the Second Amendment. But it is also a stark rebuke to Donald Trump’s...

read more

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This