The Justice Department has ordered the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to suspend most searches of passengers at airports and other mass transit hubs after an independent investigation found DEA task forces weren’t documenting searches and weren’t properly trained, creating a significant risk of constitutional violations and lawsuits.
The deputy attorney general directed the DEA on November 12 to halt what are known as “consensual encounter” searches at airportsunless they’re part of an existing investigation into a criminal networkafter seeing the draft of a Justice Department Office of Inspector General (OIG) memorandum that outlined a decade’s worth of “significant concerns” about how the DEA uses paid airline informants and loose criteria to flag passengers to search for drugs and cash.
OIG Investigators found that the DEA paid one airline employee tens of thousands of dollars over the past several years in proceeds from cash seized as a result of their tips. However, the vast majority of those airport seizures aren’t accompanied by criminal prosecutions. This has led to years of complaints from civil liberties groups that the DEA is abusing civil asset forfeiturea practice that allows police to seize cash and other property suspected of being connected to criminal activity such as drug trafficking, even if the owner is never arrested or charged with a crime.
The memo , released publicly today by the OIG, found that failures to properly train agents and document searches “??creates 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.”
The OIG memo and directive is a victory for advocacy groups that oppose civil asset forfeiture, such as the Institute for Justice, a public-interest law firm that is currently litigating a class action lawsuit challenging the DEA’s airport forfeiture practices.
Dan Alban, a senior attorney at the Institute for Justice, says the OIG memo “confirms what we’ve been saying for years, and it confirms the allegations in our ongoing class action lawsuit against DEA over precisely these sorts of abusive practices, where they target travelers based on innocuous information about their travel plans, and then interrogate them and search their bags in what they call a ‘consensual encounter’ that is really anything but consensual in the high security environment of an airport.”
The OIG launched an investigation earlier this year following the Institute for Justice’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 Transportation Security Administration (TSA) checkpoint and was boarding his flight when he was approached by a DEA officer who demanded to search his carry-on. When David refused to give permission, the agent declared he was detaining the carry-on bag, and David could either board his flight or consent to a search.
David missed his flight entirely and eventually consented to a search of his carry-on, which revealed no drugs or cash.
The DEA agent told David he was suspected of illicit activity because he had booked his flight shortly before it took off. “When you buy a last-minute ticket, we get alerts,” the officer explained. “We come out, and we talk to those people, which I’ve tried to do to you, but you wouldn’t allow me to do it.”
The subsequent OIG investigation found that David was one of five passengers flagged that day by an airline employee who was paid by the DEA to flag travelers’ itineraries if they met certain suspicious criteria.
According to previous OIG audits, common red flags for passengers are “traveling to or from a known source city for drug trafficking, purchasing a ticket within 24 hours of travel, purchasing a ticket for a long flight with an immediate return, purchasing a one-way ticket, and traveling without checked luggage.”
Today’s OIG memo noted that “it is hardly unusual for travelers, including business travelers and last-minute vacationers, to purchase tickets within 48 hours of a flight.”
This DEA’s practice of obtaining passenger information from transportation companies, such as Amtrak and major airlines, was first revealed in 2014, with more information coming out in a 2016 inspector general audit .
By combining a snitch network, loose criteria for searches, and the low evidentiary bar to seize property under civil asset forfeiture, DEA task forces have been able to seize an enormous amount of money from airline passengers, despite it being perfectly legal to fly domestically with large amounts of cash.
In 2016, a USA Today investigation found the DEA had seized more than $209 million from at least 5,200 travelers in 15 major airports over the previous decade.
A 2017 report by the Justice Department Office of Inspector General found that the DEA seized more than $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 that 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 flimsy, evidence-free suspicions continued.
The Institute for Justice launched its class action lawsuit in 2020. The suit argues the DEA has a practice or policy of seizing currency from travelers at U.S. airports without probable cause simply if the dollar amount is greater than $5,000. This practice, the suit argues, violates travelers’ Fourth Amendment rights.
One of the lead plaintiffs in the suit, Terrence Rolin, a 79-year-old retired railroad engineer, 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 .
The DEA seized $43,167 from Stacy Jones, another of the plaintiffs in the Institute for Justice suit, in 2019 as she was trying to fly home to Tampa, Florida, from Wilmington, North Carolina. Jones says 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 these cases, DEA agents originally decided that the cash was connected to drug trafficking.
Last year, Sens. Ron Wyden (DOre.) and Cynthia Lummis (RWyo.) urged the Justice Department to ban the DEA and other federal law enforcement agencies from using travel employees as sources for obtaining Americans’ travel information without a warrant or subpoena.
The Justice Department directive halts “all consensual encounters at mass transportation facilities unless they are either connected to an existing investigation or approved by the DEA Administrator based on exigent circumstances.”
Alban says the Justice Department directive will curb the majority of abusive “consensual encounter” searches, but it won’t stop TSA screeners from flagging cash at security checkpoints.
Furthermore, Alban says, only legislation can permanently stop the DEA from abusing asset forfeiture, noting a 2019 bill passed by Congress that stopped the IRS from summarily seizing small business’ bank accounts.
“It’s that sort of reform that is really needed,” Alban says, “because at any time this directive could be rescinded, and then DEA ill be back to their regular practice of preying on travelers at airports.”
The DEA did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
“A wave of new cafes, bars, music venues and outdoor dining” could come to the UK – as the government unveils plans to overhaul planning rules and “breathe new life into the high street”.
Under the proposals, ministers also want to reform licensing rules to make it easier for disused shops to be converted into hospitality venues.
In a statement, Chancellor Rachel Reeves said she planned to scrap “clunky, outdated rules… to protect pavement pints, al fresco dining and street parties”.
The reforms also aim to prevent existing pubs, clubs, and music venues from suffering noise complaints when new properties hit the market.
Developers who decide to build near those sites will be required to soundproof their buildings.
Image: Reuters file pic
As part of dedicated “hospitality zones”, permission for al fresco dining, street parties and extended opening hours will be fast-tracked.
The government says the reforms aim to modernise outdated planning and licensing rules as part of its Plan for Change, to help small businesses and improve local communities.
More on Hospitality
Related Topics:
The rough plans will be subject to a “call for evidence” which could further shape policy.
Business Secretary Jonathan Reynolds said the proposals will “put the buzz back into our town centres”.
“Red tape has stood in the way of people’s business ideas for too long. Today we’re slashing those barriers to giving small business owners the freedom to flourish,” he said.
The hospitality industry has broadly welcomed the changes but argued tax reform was also essential.
Kate Nicholls, chairwoman of UKHospitality, described the proposals as “positive and encouraging”.
However, she added: “They can’t on their own offset the immediate and mounting cost pressures facing hospitality businesses which threaten to tax out of existence the businesses and jobs that today’s announcement seeks to support.”
While supporting the reforms, Emma McClarkin, chief executive of the British Beer and Pub Association (BBPA), had a similar message.
“These changes must go hand in hand with meaningful business rates reform, mitigating staggering employment costs, and a cut in beer duty so that pubs can thrive at the heart of the community,” she said.
In July, BBPA estimated that 378 pubs will shut this year across England, Wales and Scotland, compared with 350 closures in 2024, which it said would amount to more than 5,600 direct job losses.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
2:03
Pubs closing at a rate of one a day
Bar chain Brewdog announced this week that it would close 10 sites, partly blaming “rising costs, increased regulation, and economic pressures”.
Andrew Griffith MP, shadow business secretary, said: “Though any cutting of red tape for hospitality businesses is welcome, this is pure hypocrisy and inconsistency from Labour.”
He said the government was “crippling the hospitality industry by doubling business rates, imposing a jobs tax and a full-on strangulation of employment red tape”.
A campaign group for a third runway at Heathrow that gets funding from the airport has been distributing “incredibly misleading” information to households in west London, according to opponents of the expansion.
The group, called Back Heathrow, sent leaflets to people living near the airport, claiming expansion could be the route to a “greener” airport and suggesting it would mean only the “cleanest and quietest aircraft” fly there.
It comes as the airport prepares to submit its planning application for a third runway ahead of the 31 July deadline, following the government’s statement of support for the expansion.
Image: A plane lands over houses near Heathrow Airport. Pic: PA
Back Heathrow calls itself a “local campaign group of over 100,000 residents” and does not mention the funding it receives from the airport in the newsletter.
Its website also does not mention the current financial support and says it “initially launched with funding from Heathrow Airport but we have since grown”.
Back Heathrow also told Sky News it had “always been open” about the support it receives from the airport.
At the bottom of every web page, the organisation says: “Back Heathrow is a group of residents, businesses and community groups who have come together to defend the jobs that rely on Heathrow and to campaign for its secure future.”
Heathrow Airport said it had always been clear about funding Back Heathrow, but would not disclose how much it provides.
Image: Parmjit Dhanda in 2009 at the hustings to be Speaker of the House of Commons. Pic: Reuters
Who’s behind Back Heathrow?
The group’s executive director is former Labour minister Parmjit Dhanda, who was MP for Gloucester from 2001 to 2010 and sits on the National Policy Forum – the body responsible for developing Labour policy.
Latest accounts for Back Heathrow show it had five employees, including its two directors, in the financial year ending 30 June 2024. The second director is John Braggins, a former campaign adviser to Tony Blair.
The business had £243,961 in cash, the accounts show.
What are the group saying?
In the newsletter, executive director Mr Dhanda said people ask if Heathrow is sustainable. In answering the question, he appeared to suggest the airport can dictate what types of planes use Heathrow.
“We can build a cleaner, greener and smarter airport – using more sustainable aviation fuel, ensuring only the cleanest and quietest aircraft fly here, reduce stacking in our skies and modernise our airspace to cut emissions in flight,” he wrote.
When asked by Sky News what Back Heathrow meant and what the source for the claim was, the organisation pointed to the airport’s traffic light system of noise and emission measurements for the 50 largest airlines serving Heathrow.
“The scheme helps to see what areas certain airlines are excelling in and where improvements can be made,” a spokesperson said.
But those “cleaner and greener” claims were dismissed as “myths” by one campaigner.
Image: Back Heathrow’s spring 2025 newsletter
Finlay Asher is an aerospace engineer and co-founder of Safe Landing, a group of aviation workers and enthusiasts seeking climate improvements in the industry.
He said the emissions savings from sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) were “highly debatable” – but added that even if they were taken at face value, use of these fuels is “relatively low” and so only provides small emissions reductions.
“Air traffic growth at Heathrow will wipe this out,” he said.
Mr Asher also disputed the claim that only the cleanest and quietest aircraft will fly at Heathrow. “There is no policy in place which prevents older generation aircraft from being operated out of any airport,” he said.
As for reducing “stacking” – where aircraft wait over an airport to land – Mr Asher said if that’s the goal, “adding more aircraft to the sky won’t make this easier”.
Opposition to Back Heathrow’s claims also came from Rob Barnstone, founder of the No Third Runway Coalition, which is funded by five local authorities surrounding Heathrow Airport.
He said that regardless of fuel efficiencies or new quieter engines, having the additional 260,000 flights Heathrow has said will be created with an extra runway – in addition to the airport’s current cap of 480,000 – would create “an awful lot of noise”.
“For all the best will in the world, Heathrow is a very, very, very noisy neighbour… When you’re adding a quarter of a million additional flights, that’s going to create an awful lot of emissions, even if they’re using planes that are ever so slightly less environmentally damaging than previous planes,” Mr Barnstone said.
Green claims
Under the heading of “UK sustainable fuel industry for Heathrow”, Back Heathrow said “advances in electric and hydrogen powered aircraft can ensure we meet our environmental targets”.
Elaborating on this, Back Heathrow told Sky News: “Zero-emission electric and hydrogen aircraft are very much the end goal for civil aviation and countries like Norway have set 2040 as the year that all of their short-haul flights will be by electric planes.”
The statement was called “incredibly misleading” by Dr Alex Chapman, senior economist at the left-leaning think tank New Economics Foundation (NEF).
“There’s just absolutely no confidence that those aircraft are going to have any meaningful impact on emissions and commercial aviation in any reasonable time frame. And, yeah, we can all speculate as to what may not happen in 50 years’ time. But I think the people living around the airport should be given the information about what’s actually realistic.”
Even if the technology were available, the runway may not be ready for it, Dr Chapman said.
“Perhaps more importantly, there’s been no indication so far that the proposed new runway is being built to cater for those types of aircraft, because a runway that caters to electrical, hydrogen powered aircraft would be very different to one that was for conventional fuel, particularly in terms of the fuelling infrastructure around it that would be required: pipes to pipe hydrogen, massive charging power facilities.”
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
7:16
Heathrow CEO on expansion plans
While work is under way to develop electric aircraft, there are currently no commercial electric flights taking place. The best-case scenario is battery-powered flights that may be suitable for short journeys.
But as a major international airport, more than 40% of Heathrow’s flights are long-haul and medium-haul.
And while airlines such as easyJet have called for government funding to develop hydrogen flying suitable for short-haul flights, there are obstacles to making regular commercial flights a reality.
Providing enough hydrogen for the plane journeys from renewable sources will be challenging, as will transporting the fuel, and reworking airport infrastructure for hydrogen refuelling.
Plans for hydrogen aircraft are at least a decade away, with Airbus saying it wants to get a 100-seat hydrogen plane in the air by 2035 – although Back Heathrow’s estimates for a third runway have flights taking off in 2034.
For now, rising emissions from flying are risking the UK’s climate targets, according to the independent government advisers of the Climate Change Committee, who found flights contribute more greenhouse gas than the entire electricity supply sector.
Image: Back Heathrow’s spring 2025 newsletter
Expanding at ‘full capacity’
On the first page of the newsletter, Back Heathrow says “Heathrow is at full capacity”, but the company told Sky News the airport has been “operating at 98% capacity since 2005”.
Despite its 98% capacity, Heathrow Airport has broken passenger number records every year for the past 14 years – excluding the pandemic years of 2020 to 2023.
Dr Chapman said Heathrow is at capacity regarding the government-imposed flight cap, not at the capacity of the current runway infrastructure.
“So if the government were, for example, to lift that cap on the number of aircraft movements, it’s pretty likely that they could actually fly 10% to 20% more flights out of the existing infrastructure,” he said.
As aeroplanes have expanded to carry more passengers, the airport has welcomed more people, he added.
The airport earlier this month announced plans to increase its capacity by 10 million passengers a year, before a third runway is built, and to raise the charge paid by passengers to fund the investment.
A Heathrow spokesperson said: “Back Heathrow represents tens of thousands of local people who want to make their views known on the importance of Heathrow to their communities and livelihoods today and into the future.
“We have always been clear that, alongside individual residents, local business groups and trade unions, we provide funding for Back Heathrow to provide a voice for local people who historically have not been heard in the debate about expanding Heathrow.”
Speaking for the campaign group, Mr Dhanda said: “At Back Heathrow we are proud of our link to Heathrow Airport (the clue is in the name).
“We have always been open about the fact that we receive support from the airport and that they helped set the organisation up to balance the debate about expansion at a time when the voices of ordinary working people from the diverse communities around Heathrow were not being heard.”
“Back Heathrow also receives support from trade unions, local businesses and residents from amongst the 100,000 registered supporters it now has,” he added.
“We want an end to the dither and delay. Back Heathrow supporters want to see economic growth and the thousands of new jobs and apprenticeships a new runway will create.”
SARATOGA SPRINGS, N.Y. — Kentucky Derby and Belmont Stakes champion Sovereignty rallied after losing position heading into the final turn to win the $500,000 Jim Dandy by a length at Saratoga on Saturday.
Ridden by Junior Alvarado, Sovereignty ran nine furlongs in 1:49.52 and paid $3 to win as the 1-2 favorite against four rivals, the smallest field of his career.
Hall of Fame trainer Bill Mott said Sovereignty would be pointed toward the $1.25 million Travers on Aug. 23 at the upstate New York track.
Approaching the turn, there were a few tense moments as it appeared Sovereignty was retreating when losing position to the advancing Baeza and deep closers Sandman and Hill Road, leaving Sovereignty in last for a few strides.
Alvarado said he never had a doubt that Sovereignty would come up with his expected run.
“It was everybody else moving and at that time I was just like, ‘Alright let me now kind of start picking it up,'” Alvarado said. “I had 100% confidence. I knew what I had underneath me.”
Baeza, third to Sovereignty in both the Derby and Belmont, finished second. Hill Road was another 9¼ lengths back in third. Mo Plex was fourth and Sandman fifth.