Obey the rules...or jail

I wanted to pass on a story about the importance of following the rules. We met an elderly lady from Australia, quite dignified looking and about 80+, on a transpacific cruise from Seattle to Sydney. She told us about her horrifying experience sitting in jail after she flew to LAX from Australia. The immigrations authorities cuffed her and had her sitting in prison for 16 hours but not telling her why she was detained. It appears that somehow she was not processed properly out of the USA when last here two years ago. They "caught her" when she tried to reenter.

I imagine that she was possibly transported about in some type of wheelchair while at the airport two years ago and "fell through the cracks." I was shocked that an elderly person would be treated like that.

Some friendly countries have even stricter rules than we do. Try to get a sealed can of macadamia nuts through Australia or New Zealand, and you will be taken aside for further questioning (my experience.) We were advised to also carry all of our prescriptions in their original containers, not the pill boxes we use at home.

I wanted to pass on a story about the importance of following the rules. We met an elderly lady from Australia, quite dignified looking and about 80+, on a transpacific cruise from Seattle to Sydney. She told us about her horrifying experience sitting in jail after she flew to LAX from Australia. The immigrations authorities cuffed her and had her sitting in prison for 16 hours but not telling her why she was detained. It appears that somehow she was not processed properly out of the USA when last here two years ago. They "caught her" when she tried to reenter.

 

I imagine that she was possibly transported about in some type of wheelchair while at the airport two years ago and "fell through the cracks." I was shocked that an elderly person would be treated like that.

 

Some friendly countries have even stricter rules than we do. Try to get a sealed can of macadamia nuts through Australia or New Zealand, and you will be taken aside for further questioning (my experience.) We were advised to also carry all of our prescriptions in their original containers, not the pill boxes we use at home.

Sounds like your Australian lady friend obeyed the rules and still went to the lock up. So shouldn't your title on this thread be;

"Obey the Rules....and jail"

I guess CBP does not distinguish age in its process.

Sent from my iPad using Forums

I guess CBP does not distinguish age in its process.

This post may have been entered by voice recognition. Please excuse any typographical errors.

When nonimmigrants--non-citizens who are in the U.S. legally but do not have green cards (a highly simplified definition, but it will do for this purpose)--leave the U.S. by commercial airline, the airline advises CBP of their departure. This used to be done by collecting their paper I-94 or I-94W forms (the entry/exit form stapled in their passports when they entered). A couple of years ago it transitioned to a more automated process. Back in the paper days, cards often got lost, and so often a "hit" on non-departure was unremarkable. Once the process became automated, it became common belief that the system was foolproof, and so CBP started getting tougher on these hits. Under the law, someone who overstayed more than 180 days is barred from entry for three years, and an overstay of more than one year results in a 10-year bar. If there's no record of someone leaving, officers tend to assume that the person overstayed for most if not all of the time.

In fact, however, the system is not foolproof, and particularly during the transition, which was about the same time as her last visit, some data fell into a black hole. It usually was that a data point was entered differently on exit than on entry--sometimes just a letter on a name or a month/day vs. day/month confusion on entering date of birth. Though they finally fixed a lot of those issues, the bad data still lingers. And there's a lot of new agents on the line who weren't around for that mess, or believe that it's all been 100% fixed.

As for cuffing and jail, yes, that's entirely credible, and indeed likely. When this issue is flagged, the person is sent to secondary inspection. If it can't be sorted out immediately there, they will cuff the person and either put them in a holding cell onsite at the airport, or take them to a detention center in the area. So, yeah, she probably was cuffed and jailed for 16 hours.

As for age, I've heard CBP officers make jokes about the "bad grannies" problem. Apparently, there is something akin to an epidemic of older folks smuggling marijuana into the U.S. across the northeast border. Vermont crossings seem to be particularly prone to this for some reason. And then there's the phenomena of older women coming to the U.S. to visit their grown kids, and then enjoying their grandchildren so much that they overstay their admissions.

I guess CBP does not distinguish age in its process.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Forums

Does anyone think that just being elderly gives an automatic waiver?

Does anyone think that just being elderly gives an automatic waiver?

A lot of folks do. See it all the time.

Folks thinking they can be rude to customer service reps and they won't get called on it because they are "elderly".

They should not have to wait in a line like the rest of us because they are "elderly".

They deserve special treatment or should not have to follow the same rules as others all because they are "elderly".

Its a form of ageism.

Never mind the rest. Did she say if it was a BA, OV or INT jail cell?

LAX is why we never fly to Europe via the States, always via Asia. Better airlines too!!

When nonimmigrants--non-citizens who are in the U.S. legally but do not have green cards (a highly simplified definition' date=' but it will do for this purpose)--leave the U.S. by commercial airline, the airline advises CBP of their departure. This used to be done by collecting their paper I-94 or I-94W forms (the entry/exit form stapled in their passports when they entered). A couple of years ago it transitioned to a more automated process. Back in the paper days, cards often got lost, and so often a "hit" on non-departure was unremarkable. Once the process became automated, it became common belief that the system was foolproof, and so CBP started getting tougher on these hits. Under the law, someone who overstayed more than 180 days is barred from entry for three years, and an overstay of more than one year results in a 10-year bar. If there's no record of someone leaving, officers tend to assume that the person overstayed for most if not all of the time.

 

In fact, however, the system is not foolproof, and particularly during the transition, which was about the same time as her last visit, some data fell into a black hole. It usually was that a data point was entered differently on exit than on entry--sometimes just a letter on a name or a month/day vs. day/month confusion on entering date of birth. Though they finally fixed a lot of those issues, the bad data still lingers. And there's a lot of new agents on the line who weren't around for that mess, or believe that it's all been 100% fixed.

 

As for cuffing and jail, yes, that's entirely credible, and indeed likely. When this issue is flagged, the person is sent to secondary inspection. If it can't be sorted out immediately there, they will cuff the person and either put them in a holding cell onsite at the airport, or take them to a detention center in the area. So, yeah, she probably was cuffed and jailed for 16 hours.

 

As for age, I've heard CBP officers make jokes about the "bad grannies" problem. Apparently, there is something akin to an epidemic of older folks smuggling marijuana into the U.S. across the northeast border. Vermont crossings seem to be particularly prone to this for some reason. And then there's the phenomena of older women coming to the U.S. to visit their grown kids, and then enjoying their grandchildren so much that they overstay their admissions.[/quote']

 

 

Thanks for this information, and it makes sense. I love using my computer but I think we have all experienced information failure or issues with our computers at some stage. Hence why some confirmation receipts I still print a hard copy to have as a just in case. Unfortunately no use in this case.

 

It sounds like your explanation is what happened to this lady.

 

Julie

Does anyone think that just being elderly gives an automatic waiver?

I think being elderly ought to give you an automatic waiver against being handcuffed, yes. After all, what is the point of the handcuffs? It's not a punishment, it's a way of preventing the potential criminal from escaping. Rather than handcuffing elderly ladies, they ought to employ security guards who are quick, agile, and strong enough to stop them from getting away.

I think being elderly ought to give you an automatic waiver against being handcuffed, yes. After all, what is the point of the handcuffs? It's not a punishment, it's a way of preventing the potential criminal from escaping. Rather than handcuffing elderly ladies, they ought to employ security guards who are quick, agile, and strong enough to stop them from getting away.

"Quick, agile, and strong enough to stop them from getting away " - I assume you are contemplating a tackle or a cross-body block as might be required to stop him/her? Perhaps physical detaining is actually a kinder way of effective retention. And age/disability is the perpertrator's problem - not the public's.

As in most other situations, prevention is better than playing catch-up.

"Quick, agile, and strong enough to stop them from getting away " - I assume you are contemplating a tackle or a cross-body block as might be required to stop him/her? Perhaps physical detaining is actually a kinder way of effective retention. And age/disability is the perpertrator's problem - not the public's.

 

As in most other situations, prevention is better than playing catch-up.

Actually, no. I don't know whether you know anyone aged 80 or more - I presume you must do - but I am 52 and would be very confident that I could stop most 80-year-olds making a dash for escape, without having to jump on them or drag them to the ground. And I'm not especially fit and don't have specific training. If you genuinely believe that it's kinder to handcuff someone to a chair than it is to leave them unshackled but with an active guard, then I surely hope you never take a responsible position in an old folk's home. It isn't the treatment I would want for any of my relatives.

What's your policy on babies? Would you handcuff them even if they're too young to walk, or would you merely clamp their pram and save the handcuffs until they start toddling?

. And age/disability is the perpertrator's problem - not the public's.

 

The perpetrator's problem, perhaps.

But the suspect's problem???

Doesn't "minimum necessary force" apply in the USA?

JB :)

Actually, no. I don't know whether you know anyone aged 80 or more - I presume you must do - but I am 52 and would be very confident that I could stop most 80-year-olds making a dash for escape, without having to jump on them or drag them to the ground. And I'm not especially fit and don't have specific training. If you genuinely believe that it's kinder to handcuff someone to a chair than it is to leave them unshackled but with an active guard, then I surely hope you never take a responsible position in an old folk's home. It isn't the treatment I would want for any of my relatives.

 

What's your policy on babies? Would you handcuff them even if they're too young to walk, or would you merely clamp their pram and save the handcuffs until they start toddling?

My mother is 90, lives in a seniors residence, and uses a cane and a walker. There is no way in hell I'd ever try to arrest her without handcuffs, she might not be able to out run me but she can still swing that cane pretty damn hard!:eek:

The perpetrator's problem, perhaps.

 

But the suspect's problem???

 

 

 

Doesn't "minimum necessary force" apply in the USA?

 

 

 

JB :)

No, there is no such thing as minimum necessary force in the US. While the public would like that to be the case, we use a ‘reasonable’ standard. So if someone has a knife, I guess you could suggest that the minimum necessary force is a taser? When by US standards this is a lethal weapon encounter so the reasonable force is deadly. As long as the force used is reasonable based on the totally of circumstances, it does not need to be the minimal force.

And yes, if the suspect is able to walk without assistance; handcuffs are appropriate. Most use of force standards will cause serious injury to someone elderly if they put up a real fight. Handcuffing to prevent this is the safest means to detain the suspect.

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

Actually, no. I don't know whether you know anyone aged 80 or more - I presume you must do - but I am 52 and would be very confident that I could stop most 80-year-olds making a dash for escape, without having to jump on them or drag them to the ground. And I'm not especially fit and don't have specific training. If you genuinely believe that it's kinder to handcuff someone to a chair than it is to leave them unshackled but with an active guard, then I surely hope you never take a responsible position in an old folk's home. It isn't the treatment I would want for any of my relatives.

 

What's your policy on babies? Would you handcuff them even if they're too young to walk, or would you merely clamp their pram and save the handcuffs until they start toddling?

I believe that, if there is reasonable belief that a suspect of any age is likely to make a run for it, handcuffing him/her to a chair is not only a more intelligent way for a guard to prevent escape but also a way of avoiding possible harm to both the suspect an the custodian which might arise from having to physically stop an attempted escape.

If you really want to wander down this silly path: when it comes to babies , many responsible custodians keep them in cages (play pens or cribs from which escape is beyond their capability) - and, when transporting them in motor vehicles, those custodians themselves are subject to arrest if they do not harness them into their seats with mechanisms which said babies are incapable of manipulating.

A UK colleague of mine got flagged entering for the same thing some time ago. He hadn't over-stayed in the US, but there was a flight cancellation or misconnection on his prior visit and apparently his exit on a different flight didn't get recorded.

Sent from my Pixel using Forums mobile app

As in most other situations, prevention is better than playing catch-up.

This.

This message may have been entered using voice recognition. Please excuse any typos.

Okay I have to admit I am somewhat curious why the assumption and discussion seems to be centred around "the perpetrator" and their possible misdemeanour. It seems this might have been a mistake that occurred due to a technical glitch. I hope the lady received an apology for this detention.

Re the handcuffs...........As an retired registered nurse who has worked in aged care as well as major hospitals I have knowledge of how fragile older skin can be. Not all but many at 80yo would be at risk at skin tears if the handcuffs were left on for any length of time. This would especially be the case with certain medications the person could be on. So not a good idea to risk skin tears from handcuffs which can take awhile to heal.

Just my opinion.

Julie

Yep, CPS can be tough. I found out the hard way. On our way back from Tahiti I bought a box of cigarettes. It sounded like a very good price and our DD smokes. I thought I would surprise her. Bought it on the ship and even put it in my carry on so it wouldn't get smashed in my luggage. Filled out the entrance form at the end of the cruise an presented it to the officer (this was done on board the ship the morning we departed). The officer took both my and my husband's passports and said we would need to report to the enclosed area after we disembarked. Neither of us had any idea what was going on. (We had some elderly relatives and wondered if somehow we had bad news coming our way) I can tell you we were very scared. There were a number of people sitting on chairs. We gave the reception person the slip that the officer onboard gave us and were told to take a seat. About 10 minutes later an Officer called our names and motioned us to come into his office. The first thing he said after he shut the door was. "You purchased cigarettes on board the ship." I said. "Yes Sir." He replied. "You know it is illegal to buy cigarettes and bring them into the country." I didn't know what to say. He said. "How many did you buy?" I replied as I opened my carry on. "I bought this box for my daughter." As I pulled it out. He grabbed it our of my hand and proceeded to rip off the top of the box. He pulled out one of the packages and said "See, it says so right here." He was right. Right on the side of the pack of cigarettes it said something to the effect that it was fine to purchase and consume on the ship, but it was not to be brought into the US. No where on the carton did it say that, only on the packs inside. Well at this point I was sure I was going to jail. Then he said. "Do you have the receipt for this?" Luckily inside of my carry on I had the print out from my account and there was the charge from the day before showing I had purchased the cigarettes from the shop on the ship. I must have looked pretty scared as he shook his head and said. "HAL, knows better." He picked up the phone and started to dial someone. "Then he spoke. He said his name and then said. "I need the manager of your shops here in my office as soon as possible." About 5 minutes later a man came in. The officer said. "Now you take this carton back to the ship and refund this woman her money and bring me a new print out of her account." The manager left. The Officer said to us. "You can wait outside. It won't take him long. This happens a couple of times a month and HAL knows it. You can go as soon as he brings your statement back." My husband said. " Is it ok if I go and collect our luggage?" By this time the officer was becoming much friendlier. He smiled and said. "Sure just pile them over here." It took about 15 min to 20 mins. for the manager to return, when he did the CPS Officer actually smiled at us as he handed us our passports back and welcomed us back home.

DH and I left the port and headed for our hotel. As soon as we put our luggage in our room I want right back down to the lounge and ordered a drink!

Yep, CPS can be tough. I found out the hard way. On our way back from Tahiti I bought a box of cigarettes. It sounded like a very good price and our DD smokes. I thought I would surprise her. Bought it on the ship and even put it in my carry on so it wouldn't get smashed in my luggage. Filled out the entrance form at the end of the cruise an presented it to the officer (this was done on board the ship the morning we departed). The officer took both my and my husband's passports and said we would need to report to the enclosed area after we disembarked. Neither of us had any idea what was going on. (We had some elderly relatives and wondered if somehow we had bad news coming our way) I can tell you we were very scared. There were a number of people sitting on chairs. We gave the reception person the slip that the officer onboard gave us and were told to take a seat. About 10 minutes later an Officer called our names and motioned us to come into his office. The first thing he said after he shut the door was. "You purchased cigarettes on board the ship." I said. "Yes Sir." He replied. "You know it is illegal to buy cigarettes and bring them into the country." I didn't know what to say. He said. "How many did you buy?" I replied as I opened my carry on. "I bought this box for my daughter." As I pulled it out. He grabbed it our of my hand and proceeded to rip off the top of the box. He pulled out one of the packages and said "See, it says so right here." He was right. Right on the side of the pack of cigarettes it said something to the effect that it was fine to purchase and consume on the ship, but it was not to be brought into the US. No where on the carton did it say that, only on the packs inside. Well at this point I was sure I was going to jail. Then he said. "Do you have the receipt for this?" Luckily inside of my carry on I had the print out from my account and there was the charge from the day before showing I had purchased the cigarettes from the shop on the ship. I must have looked pretty scared as he shook his head and said. "HAL, knows better." He picked up the phone and started to dial someone. "Then he spoke. He said his name and then said. "I need the manager of your shops here in my office as soon as possible." About 5 minutes later a man came in. The officer said. "Now you take this carton back to the ship and refund this woman her money and bring me a new print out of her account." The manager left. The Officer said to us. "You can wait outside. It won't take him long. This happens a couple of times a month and HAL knows it. You can go as soon as he brings your statement back." My husband said. " Is it ok if I go and collect our luggage?" By this time the officer was becoming much friendlier. He smiled and said. "Sure just pile them over here." It took about 15 min to 20 mins. for the manager to return, when he did the CPS Officer actually smiled at us as he handed us our passports back and welcomed us back home.

 

DH and I left the port and headed for our hotel. As soon as we put our luggage in our room I want right back down to the lounge and ordered a drink!

Thank you for sharing your story. Maybe HAL should put up big signs in the shop indicating that you can't take cigarretes back into the US. Glad you had an official who explained everything and got your money back -- nice official.

My mother is 90, lives in a seniors residence, and uses a cane and a walker. There is no way in hell I'd ever try to arrest her without handcuffs, she might not be able to out run me but she can still swing that cane pretty damn hard!:eek:

Love it!!

Re the handcuffs...........As an retired registered nurse who has worked in aged care as well as major hospitals I have knowledge of how fragile older skin can be. Not all but many at 80yo would be at risk at skin tears if the handcuffs were left on for any length of time. This would especially be the case with certain medications the person could be on. So not a good idea to risk skin tears from handcuffs which can take awhile to heal.

Just my opinion.

 

Julie

But as navybankerteacher has unsympathetically pointed out, any age-related problems such as skin tears are the problem of the old person, not the problem of the state.

Re the handcuffs...........As an retired registered nurse who has worked in aged care as well as major hospitals I have knowledge of how fragile older skin can be. Not all but many at 80yo would be at risk at skin tears if the handcuffs were left on for any length of time. This would especially be the case with certain medications the person could be on. So not a good idea to risk skin tears from handcuffs which can take awhile to heal.

Just my opinion.

Julie

Any possible bruise or skin tear (if they chose to fight the restraints) is still likely preferable to the injuries they could sustain if they were perceived as being combative or resistant by the border agents. Have you never been whacked by an agitated senior? I have, on many occasions.