Justice Department Directs DEA to Stop Airport Searches

The Justice Department’s recent order to the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to suspend most passenger searches at airports and transit hubs marks a significant shift in policy stemming from an independent investigation highlighting serious deficiencies in DEA practices. The deputy attorney general’s directive, issued on November 12, responds to a Justice Department Office of Inspector General (OIG) memorandum, which exposed a decade of operational issues relating to the DEA’s use of paid airline informants and vague criteria for passenger searches. These findings reveal a pervasive risk of constitutional violations as task forces have frequently failed to document searches and provide proper training to their agents, raising concerns about improper conduct and potential lawsuits from innocent travelers subjected to unwarranted scrutiny.

The OIG memo, made public on the same day as the directive, indicates a troubling pattern: DEA agents often conduct “consensual encounters,” which, under scrutiny, appear anything but consensual, especially given the high-pressure environment of airports. Notably, the investigation surfaced cases like that of an airline passenger named David C., who endured significant distress and missed his flight when a DEA agent insisted on searching his bag due to suspicions linked to the timing of his ticket purchase. The memo outlines that the criteria used for assessing suspicious activity is alarmingly broad, such as purchasing a ticket last-minute or traveling without checked luggage—actions that are common among legitimate travelers.

The issues raised by the OIG were exacerbated by the DEA’s previous dependence on a network of informants within airlines to identify potential drug traffickers, which has been argued to violate travelers’ rights. Critics have long alleged that the DEA exploits the civil asset forfeiture system—allowing law enforcement to seize property suspected of being tied to criminal activity without charging the owner with a crime—for financial gain, as evidenced by the significant amounts of cash they seized at airports. Alarmingly, most of these seizures do not result in criminal prosecutions, leading to years of complaints from civil liberties advocates about the DEA’s use of forfeiture to enhance their budgets rather than to serve public safety.

From the data available, the DEA’s airport practices have resulted in the seizure of over $209 million from passengers in just over a decade, with minimal connection to criminal activities. A previous 2017 OIG report indicated that nearly 80% of seizures did not support any ongoing investigation or charges, raising the specter of law enforcement not merely acting against drug trafficking but appearing more interested in the financial aspect of cash seizures. Advocacy groups like the Institute for Justice have sought legal action against such practices, illustrating how these systemic issues have resulted in outright violations of travelers’ Fourth Amendment rights.

Over the years, numerous cases have emerged where innocuous travelers lost their life savings to DEA seizures under dubious circumstances. These transactions seem to represent the abuses of power that civil liberties groups have long claimed. For instance, individuals like Terrence Rolin, who had his $82,373 savings seized, and Stacy Jones, who lost $43,167 under similar circumstances, provide stark examples of the fallout from such aggressive enforcement practices. These stories underscore the broader implications of the DEA’s behavior, prompting legislative scrutiny and calls for more stringent regulations governing asset forfeiture.

Following heightened concerns around the DEA’s conduct, the Justice Department has curtailed what it calls “consensual encounters,” limiting searches at mass transportation facilities to those related to ongoing investigations or with the approval of senior officials based on exigent circumstances. While this directive aims to rein in some of the more abusive practices, advocates argue that real change must come from legislative reform rather than executive directives, which could easily be reversed. As noted by legal experts, the directive may alleviate some immediate concerns, but without binding legislation, the potential for the DEA to revert to its previous practices remains a daunting risk for travelers across the country.