DHS Still Seizing Passengers' Cash at Airports After DEA Halt Over Constitutional Concerns

A year after the Drug Enforcement Administration ended its controversial airport interdiction program, task forces within the Department of Homeland Security appear to be carrying out similar searches and cash seizures at Dallas-area airports. Federal court records and investigative reporting show teams including Homeland Security Investigations (HSI), Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and local police identifying travelers, using narcotics-detection dogs to establish probable cause, and then searching luggage — frequently resulting in civil asset forfeiture of large sums of cash without criminal charges.

How the searches and forfeitures work

Carrying a large amount of cash on a domestic flight is lawful. But officers often treat it as a potential indicator of drug trafficking, especially when accompanied by other factors such as a one-way ticket or a short connection. Under civil asset forfeiture, law enforcement can seize property they suspect is connected to criminal activity; the owner must then challenge the seizure in civil court to recover funds, even if no criminal charges follow.

Notable cases cited in filings

Recent records describe multiple incidents at two Dallas airports. In one January case, agents said they smelled marijuana coming from two suitcases; no drugs were found, but officers discovered and seized $800,000 in cash. The traveler has not been charged and is contesting the forfeiture in federal court.

In another instance, a drug-detection dog alerted to luggage that contained roughly $350,000 in cash. No criminal charges were filed; the government later settled and returned $178,000 to the traveler.

Investigative materials also recount a case in which the same individual was stopped three separate times carrying large sums of cash; each time the money was seized and the person released. A subsequent search warrant at the individual’s home reportedly yielded seven pounds of marijuana, which led to an arrest.

What government reviews and past reporting found

Internal and inspector-general reviews contributed to the DEA’s decision to end the Transportation Interdiction Program (TIP). The DEA administrator cited a review showing that agents participating in the program seized $22 million in suspected drug proceeds between 2022 and 2024 while making only 57 arrests. Earlier federal inspector-general reporting warned that large swaths of airport forfeitures produced little prosecutorial follow-through: one multi-year review found billions in cash seized over a decade, with a substantial portion never connected to criminal charges.

“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.”

Criticisms and civil-rights concerns

Civil-liberties groups argue that civil forfeiture often deprives innocent people of due process, forcing them to pursue costly litigation to recover life savings. Critics also point to potential financial incentives for policing agencies that can erode public trust. Law enforcement defenders counter that forfeiture is a tool to disrupt organized crime by targeting illicit profits — and in some cases seized cash has been connected to criminal activity. But the frequency with which seizures are later reversed or partially returned fuels skepticism about whether the practice is being applied fairly.

Legal challenges and returned funds

Public-interest litigation has produced several high-profile reversals. A class-action case brought on behalf of travelers who had money seized prompted the return of funds in some instances. Plaintiffs include elderly and working-class travelers who said the seized money represented life savings, legitimate sales proceeds, or personal travel funds. Lawyers for affected travelers argue that constitutional protections should not be waived at airport gates.

What this means now

The DEA concluded that the interdiction program produced too few law-enforcement results to justify the constitutional risks it posed. Many civil-liberties advocates say DHS should let that judgment stand rather than continuing similar practices within its own task forces. The Department of Homeland Security did not immediately respond to requests for comment on the court filings and recent settlements.