9

It is commonly publicized about the amount of illegal drugs that ARE seized at the ports of entry to the US. Obviously illegal drugs that are NOT seized, can not be directly counted. So it is difficult to directly determine the effectiveness of ports of entry inspections.

However, audit practices in the past by TSA and DHS relative to bringing guns (illegally) onto planes provided insight into the effectiveness of TSA screening. As I understand it, these audits involved having officially sanctioned officers to attempt to smuggle firearms through security. These audits were made public (often results were announced on the evening news).

So, is there a similar audit process used to rate the effectiveness of inspections for drugs that are attempted to be smuggled through ports of entry?

And if so, have those audits results ever been made public?

  • It's not the US, but there have certainly been public examples of such tests. As usual, they only tend to make the news when they go wrong: news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/7419969.stm – origimbo Mar 7 '19 at 11:39
  • @origimbo - I'm hoping that US DHS does conduct some auditing, but not been able to find any reference at DHS or in mass media. True, if "things go wrong" it likelywould be covered in mass media, OTOH, if the effectiveness of inspections is very good, I'd have to imagine the DHS would want to trumpet that success. – BobE Mar 7 '19 at 17:23
  • Given the amount of drugs that are for sale in the US, their effectiveness is extremely questionable. – JonathanReez Nov 26 '19 at 18:37
  • When you say ports of entry do you just mean places where people enter the country? A lot of drugs also travels in as cargo, I think cocaine and bananas are a popular combination. I think different ports of entry (distinguishing between human and cargo) may yield different answers. For example, a suitcase full of bananas may draw attention whereas a shipment of bananas may seem regular. – JJJ Nov 27 '19 at 8:18
  • yes, where people enter the country accompanied by drug contraband as contrasted to a shipment of bananas. BTW, a suitcase of bananas, is likely to be illegal as well. – BobE Nov 27 '19 at 16:16
2

You have to understand that TSA is (at best) a bunch of civilians that took a training course one weekend. They're not the night-vision automatic-rifle wielding CPB narcotics teams tossing flash-bangs through windows or the USCG raiding a container ship in the middle of the ocean.

One thing you have to consider here is that TSA is a fairly young agency under the umbrella of DHS, while CBP and the USCG are their own autonomous agencies. Usually when people talk about these operations, they're talking about the big FBI probe several years back that found TSA doesn't catch a lot of firearms, and other dangerous weapons.

On the other hand, when you're talking about sea ports and drugs (for example), you're talking about maybe a cargo container full of fentanyl which could be worth hundreds of millions of dollars. Usually getting something like that into a port is actually a bit easier than getting it out too, because that requires the complicity of port personnel, or someone authoritative, to accomplish. Sea ports are not generally the sort of place you can walk into and walk out of if you're not supposed to be there, so there may also be logistics companies (knowingly or otherwise) transporting it from the port inland.

If you are talking about legitimate border crossings ("ports of entry"), there was a recent seizure of a tractor trailer packed full of methamphetamine, covered up by just a few boxes of onions. If an entire tractor trailer full of methamphetamine can make it through the border, it can safely be assumed that was a small fraction of it. If there is a market, people will find a way to get that money into their pockets.

If you'd like to look at the stats yourself, they can be found here:

And here are some articles on the topic:

A couple of interesting notes:

  1. As reported by Washington Post in the last article, "the plurality of those who were arrested for allegedly attempting to smuggle drugs into the United States were identified either explicitly as U.S. citizens or identified as residents of the United States." This means that most of the people found to be smuggling were U.S. citizens or permanent residents.
  2. Illicit opioids are fairly rarely seized, according to CPB's own stats. To me that is really troubling, considering the damage they can do in the wrong hands. The vast majority of seizures are cannabis ("marijuana"), followed by illicit stimulants (cocaine then methamphetamine). Comparatively, the fentanyl seized each year was about a hundredth of the weight of seized cocaine. Either they're really good at hiding it, or they're just not trying to find it (see: #3).
  3. Corruption is almost a fact of life for some CBP officers (who is, interestingly, one of the only law enforcement agencies that does not require psychological evaluations). If not simple bribery, some have been caught smuggling drugs themselves

Aside/IMO: This is why we really ought to focus on the underlying societal issues that motivate people to seek out illicit drugs and/or simply end their prohibition (which would remove any profit motive from the trade). Law enforcement cannot solve these problems.

| improve this answer | |
New contributor
AVLien is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering. Check out our Code of Conduct.
-2

I have some reliable first hand knowledge that TSA also gets tested on narcotics and chemical componants of explosives and do fairly better (it helps that they have dogs trained to sniff out narcotics) and the process entails more than just letting the plant walk through security with contraband (the one I'm aware of, the plant had a marked TSA handler with them at all times and they had to escort them at all points behind the security checkpoint for cleared luggage. Since they were training dogs, a person with a bright yellow safety vest with the letters TSA isn't going to tip off the dog that they should look there because like most members of the canine family, TSA dogs can't read. They also don't work with the handler daily, so they aren't going to look near them out of familiarity... the plant will look like a typical passenger and is usually a volunteer from another entire Government agency with a local office to the airport. (so they're reasonably reliable, but have now working experience in TSA or DHS to affect the test. The handler is more there to make sure the contraband isn't stolen from the plant, rather than any distrust of the plant themselves. The plant doesn't have a valid ticket for a flight and they already know where they live because the same boss sighs the checks for them, so it's not like they're gonna get far with illicit goods. They don't want a random passenger picking it up unknowingly... or worse, knowingly.).

Most ports of entry have several layers of checks, both passive and active and both visible and not visible so there's not a full accounting of what they use. While its assumed that the check point and lines for a pre-fight groping are "security theater", its not the only way security stops the bad actors. If anything its an Active Visible security measure. Just because it doesn't reliabley catch contraband doesn't mean it's not doing it's job... the "groping" jokes go a long way to discourage people from even trying funny stuff that is legal, or not paying close attention to the rules... or even oversharing (TSA pre-check lines? Yeah, for a small fee and surrendering information about you that the TSA wouldn't ask for in the normal process nets you a shorter line (when open) and the ability to leave your shoes on for the entire experience. You don't need a warrent if they want to give it to you and ain't no rule that says you can't make some money off the process.).

| improve this answer | |
  • I seem to think that the periodic firearms audits are/were publicized, so my question is are drug audits done and the results publicized. What it sounds like you are describing (check point for luggage) might be typical for a air or sea entry port, but not as typical for a land entry port. (I'm thinking of the many times I crossed the border by car and never encountered a sniffer dog or been separated from my luggage). – BobE Nov 26 '19 at 17:50
  • So it was not announced, but per my source, it was conducted in the terminal of an airport at rush hour (and it's a hub air port for one airliner, so it's not a small single terminal operation and is in a major metro-center.). The plant looked like any other passenger and there was public audience when the dog found the goods. I'm not sure if the results have been published yet, but typically unless you go digging for it, successful tests don't get published because government does something right is not a headline that sells papers. – hszmv Nov 26 '19 at 18:10
  • @BobE: Also this is one aspect of a detection system that I don't claim to know all the component parts. I'm fairly certain no interdiction system is just a baggage check or a sniffer dog and part of any successful defense like this is to hide the ball. Just because you were never prosecuted for a crime doesn't mean you were investigated for committing one. They don't have to tell you they investigated you and deemed you innocent. – hszmv Nov 26 '19 at 18:31
  • I haven't looked lately, but it seems to me that past firearm audits were picked up by the media because the results appeared in DHS monthly or quarterly briefs (that are published) on their website. (But boy do you have to dig around to find what your looking for)... another source is syracuse.edu that tracks these sorts of things – BobE Nov 26 '19 at 18:32
  • @BobE: And usually they are reported because it's bad news. An investigator's catch22: If you catch lots of bad guys, you're attacked for not catching bad guys sooner. If you don't catch lots of bad guys (but they do exist) then you're critized for letting so many bad guys through. No one thinks "wow, you're not letting the bad guys get away with a thing OR maybe it's not every day someone is doing something). – hszmv Nov 26 '19 at 18:38

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .