29

For example if someone is caught at some major airport trying to smuggle condoms with talcum powder in his butt, or in a hidden compartment in a suitcase for example

Someone might do this with the intention to test the airport security for various reasons, but what I mean is without any permission

I know this will vary from country to country, but let's say western Europe or US for example

ohwilleke
  • 211,353
  • 14
  • 403
  • 716
user43993
  • 301
  • 1
  • 3
  • 4
  • 4
    Would said person be a investigative journalist or just a private citizens? That may make difference under some jurisdictions. – Mołot Feb 20 '22 at 23:05
  • 51
    This is the most suspiciously specific SE question I've ever seen :-P – Joshua Grosso Feb 20 '22 at 23:50
  • 18
    From the police perspective, the most likely reason you're testing the security is to see if you can smuggle actual drugs the same way later. – Therac Feb 21 '22 at 10:02
  • If you ask me, person should be charged for expenses(time/resources) if he's searched by any/all personnel & found to emulate illegal methods to carry legal items. No? – जलजनक Feb 21 '22 at 11:44
  • 14
    In the US, the talcum powder will test positive for some drug of the officer's choice, and you will go to jail for a long time. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/10/magazine/how-a-2-roadside-drug-test-sends-innocent-people-to-jail.html – QuadmasterXLII Feb 21 '22 at 14:25
  • 2
    @JoshuaGrossoReinstateCMs - I do sometimes wonder if OP is typing from a holding cell at Schiphol – Richard Feb 21 '22 at 16:49
  • 1
    Is the OP of the age where he has had a prostate exam? Is he willing to endure the same type of experience from the cold untrained bear hands of some random airport narc? – Neil Meyer Feb 21 '22 at 19:01
  • 1
    This is a similar question: Can I fly with white powder in a transparent bag? –  Feb 22 '22 at 00:07
  • @Mołot Is there a legal difference between investigative journalists and "private citizens" in countries that have press freedom? – Lee C. Feb 22 '22 at 16:44
  • 4
    @LeeC. Investigative journalists can more credibly claim to be testing airport security for a purpose other than gathering intelligence for future smuggling of illegal drugs. – phoog Feb 23 '22 at 08:04
  • What the rules are, I don't know. What I do know from my own experience is, that customs officers don't like to be taken for fools. Somewhere in the early nineties, I found myself doing road management for a Danish band. Most gigs were in Denmark, but occasionally they would play in other countries. This one occasion, the gig was in the Garage in Camden in London and we landed on Stansted. The bass player was carrying his instrument as hand luggage. Inside the case underneath the bass's neck, was a small sword made of soft plastic. A kids toy. When it showed up on the screen as customs x-rayed –  Feb 22 '22 at 16:09
  • 2
    What puzzles me is why anyone should want to do anything so very blatantly - umm - unwise... – RedSonja Feb 23 '22 at 12:14
  • The definition of smuggling is to import something illegally. Whether it's up your butt or anywhere else doesn't matter. If it's being imported illegally then it's smuggling. If it's not being imported illegally then it's not smuggling. You can't smuggle something without breaking the law. If you don't break the law, you can't be smuggling something - regardless of how you decide to carry it. – J... Feb 23 '22 at 18:09
  • @Richard OP is an IT specialist with interests in red team security and is hangover and bored off his ass in his apartment in east Europe and is thinking up stuff to entertain himself. To satisfy your curiosity... – user43993 Feb 26 '22 at 16:52

6 Answers6

35

It should be pointed out that smuggling doesn't just involve illegal goods but also includes legal goods that are brought in without following proper procedures such as paying required duties.

https://www.findlaw.com/criminal/criminal-charges/smuggling-and-customs-violations.html

  1. False Declarations;
  2. Exporting violations; and
  3. Importing violations.

False declarations can happen when a person returns to the U.S. or enters for the first time. They must declare the value of any goods they are bringing in from overseas. You can violate the law by misrepresenting the value of the goods, omitting them from the declaration form completely, or making false representations. Also, if you fail to disclose leaving or entering the country with $10,000 worth of currency, you can be criminally charged.

While I am not a lawyer I could see that the authorities might have an issue with someone pulling a stunt like that in order to "test" them. Even if there is no legal issue the person could be put through a lot while they run tests to confirm that nothing illegal is being brought in and there is nothing preventing them from making the process as long and painful as they can.

Something else to consider they also have rules in place for brining other legal objects on board planes if they resemble objects that are not allowed.

https://www.tsa.gov/travel/security-screening/whatcanibring/items/toy-guns-and-weapons

Squirt guns, Nerf guns, toy swords, or other items that resemble realistic firearms or weapons are prohibited. We recommend emptying water guns, which must follow the 3-1-1 Liquids Rule. Replicas of explosives, such as hand grenades, are prohibited in checked and carry-on baggage. TSA officers have the discretion to prohibit any item through the screening checkpoint if they believe it poses a security threat.

It is also possible to be charged with selling fake drugs and the local authorities can bring those charges and it can become their word versus your word about what your intentions are. In this case you might not be intending to sell them but it would be impossible to argue that you are not trying to pass it off as fake drugs.

https://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/legal-advice/criminal-defense/drug-charges/jail-selling-fake-drugs.htm

Question: I sold a baggie of aspirins that I said was OxyContin to a guy at a concert. After the show, I heard that there were undercover officers in the crowd. Could I be busted for selling fake drugs?

Answer: Yes. States and federal laws make the sale of fake drugs illegal, and you can even be charged with an attempted drug sale under some laws.

Joe W
  • 589
  • 6
  • 16
  • 1
    Talcum powder isn't a dutiable item in small quantities, hence no declaration needs to be made about it. – Richard Feb 20 '22 at 15:46
  • 1
    @Richard Correct but it also goes to show that you can get into legal trouble for smuggling in legal goods. I would also suggest that trying to hide something like talcum powder in your rectum could also be seen as a misrepresentation of the item. – Joe W Feb 20 '22 at 15:56
  • 20
    Except that you haven't misrepresented it to anyone. In the UK, at least, you need to be guilty of a crime before you can be found guilty of a crime. The fact that the police don't understand why you would eat condoms filled with talc doesn't make you guilty, it just makes you a weirdo – Richard Feb 20 '22 at 15:57
  • 2
    @Richard Again, I would argue that it could be seen differently as the question is asking about hiding it in places that are normally used for illegal goods thus forcing officials to do a full inspection. You can most certainly get in trouble for brining items that resemble a weapon on board a plane so I see no reason that you won't also get in trouble for brining things that resemble drugs. – Joe W Feb 20 '22 at 16:02
  • 11
    I went through customs a few years ago with a rucksack and some items I'd bought for younger relatives. In it was a block of plasticine, a paperback book, a timer clock and I'd wrapped my headphones around then to stop them rattling around. Suffice to say that I made some new friends very quickly when it went through the x-ray scanner. What didn't happen next was that I wasn't charged with a crime, despite my having caused them alarm. – Richard Feb 20 '22 at 16:05
  • 2
    @Richard Did my answer say it would be charged with a crime? No! I am just adding an answer that points out there is more to smuggling then bringing in something illegal and I would think that brining in something that is clearly designed to look illegal such as trying to hide talcum powder from screening that changes things. I would guess in your case you didn't try to hide any of those objects as a way to test security and you had honest answers and explanations for what you had that didn't involve wanting to test security. – Joe W Feb 20 '22 at 16:11
  • 6
    Indeed. And intentionally 'testing' security would probably be dealt with in the same way that other non-crimes are dealt with. A warning that you could theoretically be charged with wasting the police's time, followed by that not happening. – Richard Feb 20 '22 at 16:12
  • 1
    @Richard maybe. maybe not it all depends on the entire situation and that you can be charged with crimes for selling fake drugs and the authorities can make the claim that is what you where trying to do. – Joe W Feb 20 '22 at 16:15
  • Which is the crux of this question. Annoying the police isn't a crime, nor is importing things that aren't illegal, even if you do it in your butt. – Richard Feb 20 '22 at 16:18
  • It is decided then, it should be tested :) BTW you are having a discussion in the comments, and I believe that is frowned upon on stack exchange sites. – user43993 Feb 20 '22 at 16:23
  • I was expecting someone to bring up the possibility of the guards framing you by planting some real drugs, by the way. – user43993 Feb 20 '22 at 16:25
  • @Richard It can be if they decide that you brining in talcum powder in that method is an attempt to sell fake drugs. It all boils down to how they decide to treat what you are doing and annoying them is a good way for them to not take it in a way that favors you. I have seen many officers say they would have let someone off or gone easy on them had they just been nice about the process and forcing them to do a cavity search would not be considered nice. – Joe W Feb 20 '22 at 16:34
  • @user43993 That is also always a possibility as is the possibility of the drug test returning a false positive as has happened in the past. – Joe W Feb 20 '22 at 16:41
  • 3
    @JoeW - In the UK you actually need to attempt to sell the drugs before you can be convicted of doing so. Merely possessing something that looks like drugs isn't enough proof of a crime. – Richard Feb 20 '22 at 16:43
  • @Richard And attempting to smuggle in fake drugs couldn't possibly be seen as an attempt to sell them? Besides this question wasn't about the UK and there are other countries who will treat it differently. – Joe W Feb 20 '22 at 16:47
  • 3
    @JoeW - As much as I hate to be blunt, you're just wrong. That's not how "attempting to sell" works. – Richard Feb 20 '22 at 17:13
  • 5
    @Richard Why are you making so much fuss over me pointing out that possibility that this could end very badly for someone who attempts this? I am not saying it would end up that way all the time just that it is possible that they could treat it as something besides a prank and there could be serious legal issues for the person doing it. – Joe W Feb 20 '22 at 17:22
  • 16
    "it would be impossible to argue that you are not trying to pass it off as fake drugs." Certainly not impossible to argue. You could say you were doing it to settle an argument on the internet about what would happen if you went through customs with a condom full of talcum powder up your bum. There's your reasonable doubt right there. – kaya3 Feb 21 '22 at 08:02
  • 3
    Why would anyone who planned to sell a legal, commonly available substance, such as talcum powder, as an illicit substance go through the trouble of smuggling it in their rectum? I would have assumed that one of the main advantages of selling fake drugs, as opposed to real drugs, would be not having to do such things. – jkej Feb 21 '22 at 12:45
  • 2
    @jkej They may not have known it was a legal substance and thought that it was something else. It all depends on why they are doing it in the first place and it would come down to the word of the authorities who caught them and the person who got caught. – Joe W Feb 21 '22 at 13:31
  • 2
    @kaya3 You are assuming the word of someone who brought in talcum powder in their bum is credible. The authorities could argue that they are just making that claim to get out of trouble. – Joe W Feb 21 '22 at 13:33
  • 1
    Criminal trials aren't decided based on whether the prosecutor's or defendant's version of events is more credible. The prosecutor would have to prove, beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant made up the claim to get out of trouble. The defendant's claim that it was to settle an argument sure is weird, but the defendant being weird is consistent with the evidence, so the evidence doesn't prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Never mind that the defense could enter this thread into evidence, including timestamps showing that such an argument occurred before the incident in question. – kaya3 Feb 21 '22 at 14:24
  • 1
    @kaya3 Correct but as I have said before I am not making a claim that they would be charged or convicted of a crime. Just that these are issues that could get raised. And while I can't speak for you I can say that going through an investigation about what I was trying to do if I was in this situation would be painful. In the end does it matter if you are charged or convicted in the end if you still have to go through a lengthy investigation while they straighten everything out? – Joe W Feb 21 '22 at 14:31
  • You claimed "it would be impossible to argue that you are not trying to pass it off as fake drugs". It is blatantly possible to argue that. That is all. – kaya3 Feb 21 '22 at 14:44
  • 1
    @kaya3 I still fail to see your point. If you are trying to hide a substance in order to "test" the security systems ability to detect smuggled goods such as drugs and it is designed to look like a drug to test it how is it not trying to pass it off as fake drugs? – Joe W Feb 21 '22 at 15:43
  • 2
    @JoeW The difference is the INTENT. If they can prove you intended to sell fake drugs, say with a text message from you to another person saying "I'm gonna sell fake drugs" then that could prove intent. If they can't produce something like that, And if your defense presents a conversation showing the purpose was to test security, there's basically no case at all. I agree with you that attempting to "test" law enforcement is generally pretty dumb, but claiming someone planned to sell fake drugs just because they have something that looks like drugs is just some guy's opinion, not evidence. – barbecue Feb 21 '22 at 17:47
  • 1
    @barbecue Again, this isn't just about charges and convictions but the entire process. I would suggest that they could easily prove that you intended them to be confused as real drugs by the security checking the area. If they wanted to they could easily charge you with those types of crimes but it is a different matter if they could convict you on it and that would depend on the area. There are still parts of the world where you are guilty until proven otherwise. – Joe W Feb 21 '22 at 18:22
  • Almost all illegal drugs where originally legal drugs. Very few commonly used illicit drugs where not originally developed by pharmaceutical companies. – Neil Meyer Feb 21 '22 at 19:12
  • 2
    @NeilMeyer There have been plenty of illegal drugs that have been around for thousands of years long before we had pharmaceutical companies doing research. – Joe W Feb 21 '22 at 20:40
  • 3
    In America, it is about a 90% chance that you will get arrested and have to wait to see a judge so you can bond out. All an arrest requires is probable cause, and a rectum condom full of whit powder is probable cause. They do NOT need to field test a substance before making an arrest, as horrible as that is. Of course, field test kits are notoriously faulty anyways. Now, you may not be convicted, but you could have a bad few days. Also, I would not be surprised if some crafty DA out there found SOMETHING to charge them with. This is America, land of the criminalized. – Curious Layman Feb 21 '22 at 23:22
  • 2
    I also think people are giving FAR too much credit to the U.S. legal system, here. Just because you have text messages beforehand saying you're testing the security system, there is still a small chance that your baby powder results in a false positive. Then, those prior text messages will look like advanced planning. Sure, if the police, lawyers, judges, civilian witnesses, evidence handlers, forensics specialists, AND lab technicians all perform flawlessly and according to the rules, you'll be fine. But, do you want to make that gamble? We're talking decades in prison. – Curious Layman Feb 21 '22 at 23:27
  • 1
    One last thing, in some countries, it is illegal to the waste the time of the police: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wasting_police_time – Curious Layman Feb 21 '22 at 23:28
  • @JimmyG. - Which would apply if you tried to claim that you were "just testing security". If your defence is "no comment", then you're bulletproof since they can't prove that you intentionally wasted their time. – Richard Feb 22 '22 at 12:57
  • 2
    @Richard Can't claim you wasted their time when you smuggled in taclum powder? Either you are attempting a crime or you are wasting their time there is no other way to describe smuggling in something and forcing them to do searches and testing to determine what it is you smuggled in. At this point it seems you are arguing to argue. – Joe W Feb 22 '22 at 13:35
  • 1
    @JoeW - In the UK, there's not a hope in hell of making a 'wasting police time' charge stick against this person. Only a tiny amount of time has been lost, no-one has been diverted from their duty, you've not made a false report, etc etc – Richard Feb 22 '22 at 14:08
  • 1
    @Richard Where in my answer do I state I am answering for the UK? There are many places in the world besides the UK which have different laws and this question was not asked in regards to the UK but in general. And where you are getting these claims that only a tiny amount of time has been wasted? Considering this is all hypothetical we have no way to know how much time is wasted by this, it could be short or it could be a significant amount of time. Again it seems you are arguing to argue. – Joe W Feb 22 '22 at 14:10
  • 1
    Seems like this discussion is wandering all over the place. The reality is, police can do all sorts of things to make your life hell, but odds of actually being CONVICTED of a crime are slim. Unless you're black, of course, in which case you'll probably get shot while resisting arrest. – barbecue Feb 22 '22 at 15:30
  • 1
    @barbecue And I never mentioned convictions in my answer, just things that could happen and the person doing this could run into. – Joe W Feb 22 '22 at 16:11
  • 2
    @JimmyG. "They do NOT need to field test a substance before making an arrest": one reason for this is that attempting to smuggle drugs is also a crime (as implied in this answer), and to prove attempt it is sufficient to show that the smuggler believes the powder to be an illegal drug, regardless of what it actually is. – phoog Feb 23 '22 at 08:18
  • 2
    I doubt "wasting police time" would be an easy case to prosecute in this instance; covertly smuggling something in like that is actually incredibly strong evidence to suggest that you didn't want the police to catch you! Therefore, how could that be proof that you intended to be caught and waste their time? I don't think that would be very easy to spin. – user45266 Feb 23 '22 at 09:36
  • @user45266 They can still put you through a lot of pain with all the procedures and things you have to go through. As I have said many times this is not about getting a conviction but what could be done to you after they find it in the first place. – Joe W Feb 23 '22 at 13:23
21

In this instance you can consider this your lucky day. No drugs were found on you and hence your defence is airtight, even if that can no long be said about you after your cavity search. You didn't break a law, despite the fact the police have ample proof that you intended to.

Having a hidden compartment in your luggage isn't illegal, nor is the import of talcum powder in your colon, and while I suspect there are minor charges that could theoretically be levied for wasting the time of the police or making false statements to customs, in reality these would be very unlikely to pass the CPS' test of whether it's likely that they would secure a conviction on those very narrow grounds.

On the flip-side, you may find that this incident is used against you subsequently if the police feel (after having searched your phone, etc) that there was a conspiracy to import drugs, even if no actual drugs were found. And if you were caught passing it off as heroin and trying to sell it to someone, that would be punishable under the laws that govern 'Offering to Supply a Class A Drug'.

Richard
  • 4,105
  • 11
  • 33
  • You are right, but only when you add a lot of assumptions that are not specified in the question. The police cannot possibly have ample proof that you intended to break a law, if you absolutely did not intend to. With this being a theoretical case, there is no point of debating the intent, as it is part of the hypothetical presented situation. So there is no intent, and no false statements are made to the customs. When customs ask "what's in your stomach", hypothetical OP would truthfully answer "talc powder inside condoms". – Andrei Feb 21 '22 at 16:43
  • 1
    @Andrei - I suspect that they'd answer "I want a solicitor" if they have any brains at all, but even saying "nothing" wouldn't be a lie in this case, because talc-filled condoms are (at least in the eyes of customs), actually nothing – Richard Feb 21 '22 at 16:48
  • 1
    @Andrei And thus is the crux of the problem, even if they truthfully answer there is no way to verify the claims of it being talcum powder and not drugs without removing them from you and testing them. That is where the problems start as those areas are already typically overworked and they are not going to look kindly on anyone making more work for them like this. – Joe W Feb 21 '22 at 18:53
  • @JoeW it is not more work, it is simply their work. But I don't find this to be an issue, as most custom officers are very much aware of this. It really doesn't make a difference for them if they work 8 hours checking drugs in someone's bum, or talc powder. If anything, as citizens, they should be happy it's something legal and not something illegal, but as customs officers it shouldn't bother them at all. Those who are bothered are not able to do their job properly, but I don't think this is common. – Andrei Feb 21 '22 at 19:55
  • 2
    @Andrei Its not more work to have to do a cavity search of a person to retrieve suspicious objects and do tests on them? Or are you asking us to believe that they will take the word of someone who has clearly hidden something on their person to make it difficult to find/verify? They are not going to be happy to be forced to do all those checks for talcum powder – Joe W Feb 21 '22 at 20:38
  • @joew You're bringing up "all those checks" as if there's some epidemic of events, but nothing like that was mentioned. The question is about one single incident. – barbecue Feb 22 '22 at 15:43
  • 2
    @barbecue I am brining up things I believe are relevant and could be considered if something like this happens. If a customs checkpoint finds an object hidden in someone's body they are unlikely to take that persons word that it is a harmless non banned substance. – Joe W Feb 22 '22 at 16:11
  • 1
    An element of the offence of "wasting police time" is making a false report (see https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1967/58/section/5). Simply showing up with something designed to look like a prohibited substance does not satisfy that requirement. – phoog Feb 23 '22 at 13:29
  • @phoog - There are other possible elements that might conceivably be relevant here (such as endangering yourself in a way that the police feel obligated to deal with) – Richard Feb 23 '22 at 13:35
14

A right of "citizenship" is that your own border guards can't refuse you entry. The corollary is: "Anyone else, they can refuse".

If you pulled shenanigans like that, aside from the suffering while being detained as they investigate, once cleared they will refuse you entry and you must now pay for immediate airfare home at spot prices (list price). Expect a lifetime ban.

Further, that refusal would affect every future entry into countries which share data (most of North America and Europe) or that ask "have you ever been refused entry into a country". This also voids your eligibility for Visa Waiver Programs (again common among North American and European countries). Which means you must spend good money applying for a visa to countries you previously didn't need a visa for.

*The authorities would accurately view the stunt as an attempt to probe their security. They would presume this was "practice" / "a dry run" and your intent was to smuggle actual contraband in the future. As such, while in detention, expect "the third degree" in appropriate measure.

And if they choose to be unreasonable, and you or your loved ones reach out to your own country's diplomatic staff to intervene... what a fun conversation that will be!

Harper - Reinstate Monica
  • 19,563
  • 2
  • 27
  • 81
11

Even though you probably ultimately wouldn't be convicted of smuggling an illegal substance, I can imagine a number of unpleasant things happening to you. This is not an exhaustive list, but off the top of my head:

  1. You have the inconvenience and embarrassment of a cavity search.
  2. You might be arrested and jailed for smuggling, until such time as the authorities decide to actually test whatever they found on (in) you. That could be days or longer. Meanwhile, you're in jail. That may delay your vacation plans.
  3. Border agents have a lot more power and you have fewer rights than when encountering "regular" police. They could simply decide to not allow you into the country -- ever again. You have very little recourse.
  4. You would likely be placed on some sort of watch-list. Every time you crossed the border, expect to have an "enhanced" search of you and your possessions.
  5. I don't know customs laws, but there is likely some provision for "interfering" with customs operations that you could be charged with.
  6. As @Richard pointed out, if they think you were part of a larger operation, you could be charged with conspiracy.
Ron Trunk
  • 1,500
  • 7
  • 20
  • 7
  • Your "drugs" are tested by someone like Annie Dookhan, and they now have proof the bag actually contains drugs.
    • – Patrick M Feb 21 '22 at 08:34
  • Agree with Patrick M - it is easy to plant evidence to speed convictions. – Astor Florida Feb 21 '22 at 09:36
  • @PatrickM Since this is a forum about law, we assume that people follow it. – Ron Trunk Feb 21 '22 at 14:01
  • At the very least you will be detained until you pass the condom so at the extreme minimum you are looking at 2 to 3 days in a airport holding cell. – Neil Meyer Feb 21 '22 at 18:39
  • @axsvl77 Assuming such a thing would leave us vulnerable of falling prey to false conclusions. It's good to know the letter of the law, but it's use in practice heeds far more valuable information. – Curious Layman Feb 21 '22 at 23:35