DEA Ends Airport Gate Searches After Years of Documented Abuses of Civil Asset Forfeiture
The Justice Department temporarily suspended the program in November because of "significant risks" of constitutional violations.

The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) is ending searches of passengers at airports and other mass transit hubs after years of investigations by government watchdogs, civil liberties groups, and media outlets documenting how agents seized legal cash from innocent American travelers.
DEA Administrator Anne Milgram announced in a memo last week that the agency was scrapping its Transportation Interdiction Program (TIP) and reassigning agents, citing an internal review that found the program was outdated and resulted in few arrests. The Justice Department temporarily suspended the program in November after an Inspector General report outlined the significant risk of constitutional violations and litigation created by so-called "consensual encounter" searches by DEA agents at airports.
Milgram wrote in her memo that the results of the internal DEA review, which was launched following the Inspector General report, made it "clear that the TIP is not an effective way to utilize our limited resources." According to the memo, between 2022 and 2024, DEA agents participating in TIP seized $22 million in suspected drug proceeds but only arrested 57 suspects. Modern cartels are increasingly laundering their illicit proceeds through cryptocurrency rather than smuggling hard cash through airports, Milgram wrote. Meanwhile, Milgram said the DEA's more sophisticated investigations into criminal networks over the same period netted $1.4 billion and "thousands" of arrests.
However, Milgram's memo barely mentions the most important reason for ending its airport searches: the abuse of American travelers' constitutional rights.
The Institute for Justice (I.J.), a public-interest law firm, is currently litigating a class-action lawsuit alleging the DEA and Transportation Security Administration (TSA) violate travelers' Fourth Amendment rights by seizing their money without probable cause simply if the dollar amount is greater than $5,000.
Dan Alban, a senior attorney at the Institute for Justice, said in a press release that ending the searches "will help protect the rights of travelers from the abuses so many have suffered while flying. TIP encouraged DEA agents to prey on people who were flying with cash, even though doing so is perfectly legal."
The Justice Department Inspector General began investigating the TIP in 2024 following I.J.'s release of a video taken by an airline passenger who was detained and had his bags searched by the DEA at the airport.
The passenger, identified only as David C., had already passed through a TSA checkpoint and was boarding his flight when he was approached by a DEA officer who demanded to search his carry-on.
"I don't care about your consent stuff," the agent told David repeatedly after he said he did not consent to a search. David's travel schedule was flagged by an airline employee who was a paid DEA informant. The agent found nothing in David's baggage, and David missed his flight.
Furthermore, the DEA agent never logged the search, even though DEA policy requires all such "consensual encounters" to be documented.
"Without the subject, the individual, thinking to immediately use their cell phone to record the event," Inspector General Michael Horowitz said, "in fact, we clearly wouldn't have known about it because absent that video, there was no record of the incident."
The Inspector General's investigation found that DEA failed to properly train agents and document searches, and its report concluded that these failures create "substantial risks that DEA Special Agents (SA) and Task Force Officers (TFO) will conduct these activities improperly; impose unwarranted burdens on, and violate the legal rights of, innocent travelers; imperil the Department's asset forfeiture and seizure activities; and waste law enforcement resources on ineffective interdiction actions."
Milgram's memo also did not acknowledge that the problems with DEA "consensual encounter" searches and seizures at airports have been known for years.
This DEA practice of obtaining passenger travel itineraries from informants at private transportation companies, such as Amtrak and major airlines, was first revealed in 2014, with more information coming out in a 2016 Inspector General audit.
In 2016, a USA Today investigation found the DEA had seized over $209 million from at least 5,200 travelers in 15 major airports over the previous decade.
A 2017 report by the Justice Department's Inspector General found that the DEA seized over $4 billion in cash from people suspected of drug activity over the previous decade, but $3.2 billion of those seizures were never connected to any criminal charges.
That 2017 report warned that the DEA's airport forfeiture activities were undermining its credibility: "When seizure and administrative forfeitures do not ultimately advance an investigation or prosecution, law enforcement creates the appearance, and risks the reality, that it is more interested in seizing and forfeiting cash than advancing an investigation or prosecution."
But DEA cash seizures based on evidence-free suspicions of drug trafficking continued.
I.J. launched its class-action lawsuit in 2020. One of the lead plaintiffs is Terrence Rolin, a 79-year-old retired railroad engineer who had his life savings of $82,373 seized by the DEA after his daughter tried to take it on a flight out of Pittsburgh with the intent of depositing it in a bank. After the case went public, the DEA returned the money.
Another of the plaintiffs had $43,167 seized by the DEA as she was trying to fly home to Tampa, Florida, from Wilmington, North Carolina. She said the cash was from the sale of a used car, as well as money she and her husband intended to take to a casino. The DEA returned her money after she challenged the seizure as well.
Likewise, in 2021 the DEA returned $28,000 to Kermit Warren, a New Orleans man who said he was flying to Ohio to buy a tow truck when agents seized his life savings at the airport.
In all of these cases, DEA agents accused passengers of being involved in drug trafficking, only to hand the money back once they challenged the seizures. Under civil asset forfeiture laws, police can seize cash and property suspected of being connected to illegal activity, even if the owner is not charged with a crime.
Although the DEA has ended "consensual encounter" searches, Alban noted that the DEA could choose to restart the TIP at any time and urged Congress to pass the FAIR Act, legislation that would significantly reform federal civil asset forfeiture practices.
"We once again call on Congress to pass the FAIR Act to permanently reform federal civil forfeiture laws that encourage and enable this bad behavior," Alban said. "FAIR would end the profit incentive, close the equitable sharing loophole, and guarantee every property owner receives their day in court by ending so-called administrative forfeitures."
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Yes! I can finally move that suitcase of cash I have stashed in a house in Pacific Palisades.
No worries. I already moved it.
Ah, I see you haven't looked inside yet. Good.
Did you put it in the banana stand?
How much more explicit could he be?
There's always money in the banana stand!
""The Inspector General's investigation found that DEA failed to properly train agents and document searches,""
I would guess that if you look at the training. They did want they were trained to do. There's probably a slide or two on how to get around constitutional rights.
Did the airlines fire the employees for sharing personal information of passengers?
And nothing else? No apologies, no returned cash, even without interest and attorney fees? $3.2 billion, that's almost enough for an election. Gee, I wonder where it ended up.
Gee, I wonder where it ended up.
Hunter's nose?
"We have investigated ourselves thoroughly and determined that we have done nothing wrong. Case closed!"
"... citing an internal review that found the program was outdated and resulted in few arrests."
"We looked into it and decided that we could unconstitutionally confiscate much larger amounts of cash much more efficiently by reassigning our armed thugs to other, more lucrative activities." - Anne Milgram, DEA Administrator
" . . . the TIP is not an effective way to utilize our limited resources."
Yeah, right.
As of 2024, it maintains 241 domestic offices in 23 divisions, and 93 foreign offices in 69 countries. With a budget exceeding $3 billion, DEA employs 10,169 people, including 4,924 special agents and 800 intelligence analysts.
#doge
I'm gonna MISSSSS those guys! The Transport Sozialist Arbeiter thugs helped me sell my book explaining how sumptuary prohibition laws seizing cash, breweries, bank accounts, crops, airplanes, ships and vehicles were the main cause of the Panic of 1907, the convulsions of 1914, the 1920 Crash, 1929 Crash, 1933 banking panics, Nixon recessions, Reagan recessions and Crash and the Waffen Bush asset-forfeiture Crash of 2008 with lengthy recession and Dem takeovers, all thanks to God's Own Prohibitionism. https://libertrans.blogspot.com/2024/12/causes-of-1980s-recessions-crash.html
Yikes! Is your book written anything like your comments here? And does it cover Comstock?
Danged if that Terry Warren case don't sound like the Terry Richmond case in the "Rebel Ridge" movie. Too bad the Dems weren't bright enough to pack a drug prohibition repeal plank in their platform in 2016--like the FDR campaign of 1932--and fight for tax cuts the way JFK did. Commie Dems have four years to learn economics and rights or face being replaced entirely by a 1972 originalist Libertarian Party. Logistics replacement curves are pretty inexorable. Ask a Whig!
I have a better idea: How about banning the DEA?
America has lost the war on drugs, and keeping this armed bureaucracy is a strain on the taxpayers.
Oh, wait.
That makes sense.
What was I thinking?
Funny how several Federal Agencies are changing their procedures all of the sudden. Almost if there was an underlying cause for it.
Modern cartels are increasingly laundering their illicit proceeds through cryptocurrency rather than smuggling hard cash through airports, Milgram wrote.
Meaning your headline is 100% bogus intentionally misleading narrative.
Milgram's memo barely mentions the most important reason for ending its airport searches: the abuse of American travelers' constitutional rights.
Because it doesn't involve any abuse of constitutional rights.
TIP encouraged DEA agents to prey on people who were flying with cash, even though doing so is perfectly legal.
Unless it's suspected to be part of a criminal activity. Then it's seized for purposes of taking it out of criminal circulation, for purpose of interrupting said criminal activity. At which point, you can appeal this and demand the government justify it as such.
If you're not actually ENGAGED in criminal activity, this is very easy to do and thus recover said assets.
Milgram's memo also did not acknowledge that the problems with DEA "consensual encounter" searches and seizures at airports have been known for years.
Also not an issue.
A 2017 report by the Justice Department's Inspector General found that the DEA seized over $4 billion in cash from people suspected of drug activity over the previous decade, but $3.2 billion of those seizures were never connected to any criminal charges.
I'll ask yet again, since you never want to address this point in your stupid recycled articles, Ceej: of that $3.2 billion, how many rightful owners - besides the $150K you mentioned, a pindrop of water on a penny, in an ocean of money - made a claim to have it returned? And why not?
Come on, we both know the answer - but I want you to have the integrity to admit it for once, you gutless fake news intentional misinformation coward.
I'll ask yet again, since you never want to address this point in your stupid recycled articles, Ceej: of that $3.2 billion, how many rightful owners - besides the $150K you mentioned, a pindrop of water on a penny, in an ocean of money - made a claim to have it returned? And why not?
Because their life savings was taken so they couldn't afford to hire a lawyer?
Because they had $10k taken but a lawyer would cost $30k or more to hire over the duration of the proceedings, so they would have spent more money challenging the forfeiture than just taking the loss?
Because a vehicle was taken and by the time the owner might have gotten it back depreciation and neglect in a police impound yard would make it no longer worth close to what it was when seized and you get back to paying more to reclaim it than the thing is worth?
Because someone tries not hiring a lawyer but the rules regarding challenging a claim in their area are so labyrinthine that it's easy for a layman to miss some minor but critical legal detail that instantly forfeits any and all claims?
Or maybe you're an imbecile and think everyone who doesn't challenge is a hardened criminal.
Because their life savings was taken so they couldn't afford to hire a lawyer?
Nope, try again. Stop being intentionally obtuse.
Because they had $10k taken but a lawyer would cost $30k or more
Don't need one. Also, lawyer or no lawyer, you're going to try and get your $10K back, right? Or $10M? Or $100M?
I mean, that's worth at least making the effort to try. Right? Why aren't they making the effort, Chip? CJ? I said, why aren't they making the effort?
And if it's really not worth the effort to them, then why are you getting worked up about it? They aren't.
but the rules regarding challenging a claim in their area are so labyrinthine
"Labyrinthine."
Use your own brain, Chip. I know with 100% certainty that you chose that particular word because it's precisely what all the other ACABs use to over-dramatize a very, very simple process. You're letting them do your thinking for you, NPC.
a very, very simple process.
Right, the process is so "very, very simple" that the general rules for it are 12 pages long and can be found within the Department of the Treasury rather than the FBI, which would actually be confiscating one's property. And we know the rules in all fifty states re completely identical, right? Absolutely no difference in specific rules between one state and another, correct?
Challenging and winning takes far more than a simple 'nuh uh!' in a hearing. And not having a lawyer for any legal proceeding is always a bad idea.
Why aren't they making the effort, Chippy? This is five, six, seven, eight figures we're talking about. You'd think they'd make the effort.
Why don't they make the effort?
Come on Chippity Dippity Do Dong Day, why don't they make the effort? For the six, seven, and eight figure folks, you'd think a lawyer would be easy. But they don't even bother. Why?
Whyyyyyyy, I wonder?
Right, the process is so "very, very simple" that the general rules for it are 12 pages long and can be found within the Department of the Treasury
OHMYGOSH, twelve whole pages that can be easily found on the government's website? That's clearly not worth looking at in order to get back what's rightfully mine.
Or, "rightfully" mine. As it seems.
Challenging and winning takes far more than a simple 'nuh uh!' in a hearing.
It's not rocket science dude. The only people who lose at CAF hearings are actual criminals. Which is why they don't contest the CAF in the first place.
Why don't they make the effort?
I told you why, dullard. Either they can't afford a lawyer or the cost to recover their property is greater than losing it.
https://ij.org/press-release/new-report-finds-civil-forfeiture-rakes-in-billions-each-year-does-not-fight-crime-2/
$68.8 billion seized divided by 17 million incidents recorded is an average seizure of $4047.06. You really think you'd spend ten or twenty grand on a lawyer to try to recover a $4k loss with no guarantee of success? Who's losing a hundred million dollars in CAF? Show your work, dingus.
You really think you'd spend ten or twenty grand on a lawyer to try to recover a $4k loss with no guarantee of success?
They don't need to spend $10-20K on a lawyer.
And let's not pretend that CAF is a system of grabbing $4K here and $4K there. I'll put up with your ACAB nonsense. I will not put up with your intentional idiocy.
OK smartass. Start listing the people who had $4K seized. As opposed to $40K, or $400K, or $4M.
And then remind me why anyone who had $40K or $400K or $4M seized wouldn't go to bat to recover it.
You still need to tell me who's losing $100 million to CAF, copsucker. You persistently refuse to back up your claims, yet demand it from others, shithead.
https://ij.org/report/policing-for-profit-3/
Check out the section entitled "Small-Time Forfeitures, not Big-Time Criminals" and you'll see the median currency forfeitures by state. Note the conservative estimate of $3k attorney costs.
Naturally your response will be along the lines of 'ermagerd biased source, herpedty derp." If so, fuck off.
And just in case you missed it: Fuck off.
So you're admitting the bias of your source, acknowledging that it skews your argument, and then making up facts about attorney costs when they're not even necessary. Why would you point out the fact that your own source is garbage, but then rely on it anyway?
Because you do not discuss things here in good faith, Chip. Because you're an ACAB NPC.
You start with not one but two strawman arguments and then accuse me of not debating in good faith. Classic AT. Bask in the math that you cannot refute.
And you still haven't provided any evidence of anyone losing $100M to CAF, copsucker. Bask in your continued inability to do that as well while you accuse me of not arguing in good faith, miserable hypocrite.
Who let the DEA troll in?
To AT,
I have been on Reason a long time and I am still surprised how much you like police abusing citizens, including citizens in prison.
Now you are defending government seizure of cash without even any allegation of a crime.
Much less any evidence.
You ask why innocent civilians don’t file claims to get their money back?
Because it costs money and time that they cannot afford.
You do need a lawyer to navigate these processes.
And many lawyers won’t bother for amounts the lawyer considers petty.
But that are significant to the innocent citizen.
I have been on Reason a long time and I am still surprised how much you like police abusing citizens, including citizens in prison.
Neither of those things is true. In fact, I'm one of the most vocal proponents of serious prison reform - down to their bricks and mortar - in this entire community. And I call cops out all the time on bad behavior. It just doesn't seem that way because Reason loves to pick cases where the cop did everything right in order to advance their ACAB narratives.
Now you are defending government seizure of cash without even any allegation of a crime.
When I play Among Us, I also accuse people who might be innocent but are still hella sus. Throw them out of an airlock even.
Sometimes our suspicions are wrong. Luckily, unlike the ship's personnel, real Americans have a process to challenge that suspicion and get back what's rightfully theirs.
Because it costs money and time that they cannot afford.
Then why are you complaining in the first place? If it's that meaningless to you, what's the issue?
I'll ask you the same thing I repeatedly ask Ceej (and Derpface Magoo up there): of that $3.2 billion, how many rightful owners - besides the $150K you mentioned, made a claim to have it returned? And why not?
You do need a lawyer to navigate these processes.
No you don't. You don't need a lawyer to navigate any civil action. In fact, while lawyers are held to the rules of civil procedure and evidence, pro se litigants often get a pass on such things because sympathetic judges know they're going it on their own. Hell, I've even been in courtrooms before where a lawyer is examining a witness and the judge interrupts and says to the pro se, "Would you like to object to that?" because they know the attorney is taking advantage of the pro se's ignorance.
And, heck, these days there are AI services out there that promise legal assistance. Granted, Courts are very wary of their use, but I'm just saying - that future's coming real quick.
So, spare me the couch-fainting here.
And many lawyers won’t bother for amounts the lawyer considers petty.
So what? They're not obligated to.
How strange all this stuff is happening right now. Almost like something is coming up and rats are running for the exits.