Delta Passenger Fined $500 for apple

[AmericanFlyer]

Woman fined $500 for snack taken from Delta flight :: WRAL.com (http://www.wral.com/woman-fined-500-for-snack-taken-from-delta-flight/17503199/)

[Longtimer]

Hard to feel sympathy as the dec. clearly asks if you are bring in any fruits / vegetables
https://www.cbp.gov/travel/us-citizens/sample-declaration-form\ Perhaps there needs to be a literacy test.

[India Four Two]

No sympathy whatsoever.

I’ve declared California oranges when crossing from Canada into the US and they’ve been confiscated.

[Bend alot]

I have noticed these forms are often handed out to pax mid flight or well before landing.

So it is possible that she is literate and filled the form in good faith and later was given the apple.


As a memory test and without checking what are the other items listed below a) on that link above.

[Highway1]

Tadlock, who says U.S. Customs clearly saw the apple come from an airplane.

Are apples handed out on aircraft different from normal apples? - cant say that I have ever noticed..

[er340790]

Somewhere tonight there's a US CBP official sleeping soundly in the knowledge that he single-handedly thwarted such an egregious act of Moral Turpitude....

[Winemaker]

Well, as SLF I've flown many times between NZ and the US. There always seem to be bins with large signs, in both directions, to dispose of fruit, etc. before getting to the gendarmes.

[finfly1]

In the US recently, we seem to have spawned a fairly large cohort of folks who truly do NOT believe that 'rules' actually apply to THEM.

The repercussions and ramifications of said belief can be seen everywhere every day.

[cappt]

Had a CBP officer tell me to always check yes on that form, even if just a piece of candy, because those guys over there ( points to agriculture counter) love to fine people. If you check yes then it's declared and they can decide if it's forbidden or not.

[Cyclic Hotline]

I got pulled over with a corporate aircraft entering the US from Canada and was advised by Customs that I had two options with the contraband banana in the aircraft - eat it or surrender it to US Customs. So I ate it and disposed of the peel in the garbage can - which I assume stopped Banana blight or whatever horrifying disease it might carry, from entering the agricultural food supply in Alaska.

Thankfully there are some very practical people out there.

[Bend alot]

b) must trap a few.


Leather is an animal product so declare shoes, belts, wallets, gloves and bags. Wool and silk are also animal products.

[BewareOfTheSharklets]

In Australia and New Zealand we have had these rules for generations. They are always strictly enforced, so the travelling public of both nations is conditioned into always being especially careful.

[ironbutt57]

In Australia and New Zealand we have had these rules for generations. They are always strictly enforced, so the travelling public of both nations is conditioned into always being especially careful.

watching the television show "Border Security", one might refute that statement...they catch people on that show all the time with banned substances

[FlightlessParrot]

As BewareOfTheSharklets says, biosecurity rules are not trivial make-works for bureaucrats. In any region or country that depends on agricultural production, especially fruit, the introduction of a new pest can cost millions--perhaps billions--of dollars. And it's not just air travel: on the roads leading into Victoria in Australia, for tens of kilometres there are huge signs warning of the vegetation quarantine to keep out fruit fly, and the people at the border are serious about it. California is heavily dependent on its fruit and vege production. Perhaps they should publicise their biosecurity rules better, if they often have problems; the cute beagle puppies that ruthlessly find vegetable matter at Auckland Airport do double duty, by detecting and by being adorable about it. Fixes the rules in the mind of the traveler, in a pleasant way.

[WingNut60]

watching the television show "Border Security", one might refute that statement...they catch people on that show all the time with banned substances

He didn't say that it was always effective, but it is strictly enforced.
Even state-to-state in Oz.

[Pearly White]

He didn't say that it was always effective, but it is strictly enforced.
Even state-to-state in Oz.
Isn't that enforcement at work, on TV?

[Andrewgr2]

I travelled into the US overland from Canada with a tour group of 12 people last autumn. Our Canadian tour leader was very experienced at taking people into the States. We all had picnic food with us. No problem provided it was 'processed'. Fruit is fine provided it is chopped up in a fruit salad. Tomatoes and meat - again no problem provided it has been sliced into a sandwich etc. Strange that the act of cutting something up makes it safe - but the border authorities were told about all our food and were perfectly happy. Shoes and wallets were never mentioned but they are certainly animal products.

It still took us over 2 hours because our tour leader had made sure we had applied for our ESTA and I94 forms in advance The latter form is normally completed at the border if arriving by air or sea but had just been introduced for advance completion online if arriving overland. Both forms ask where you are staying in the US. Two people had entered addresses which did not match on the two forms. They had a comma on one line of the address on one form which was missing on the other! The computer systems spotted the incompatibility and would not permit entry or editing of the forms. The entire staff of the border point got involved! After 2 hours the problem was resolved by deleting the ESTA and re-entering it to match the I94. Doesn't say much for pre release testing of the software.

I've been an infrequent visitor to the US over the years. I would always avoid a long distance route with a transfer in the US because my experience has invariably been one of difficulties at the border - even before 9/11.

[BRE]

I travelled into the US overland from Canada with a tour group of 12 people last autumn. Our Canadian tour leader was very experienced at taking people into the States. We all had picnic food with us. No problem provided it was 'processed'. Fruit is fine provided it is chopped up in a fruit salad. Tomatoes and meat - again no problem provided it has been sliced into a sandwich etc. Strange that the act of cutting something up makes it safe - but the border authorities were told about all our food and were perfectly happy. Shoes and wallets were never mentioned but they are certainly animal products.

It still took us over 2 hours because our tour leader had made sure we had applied for our ESTA and I94 forms in advance The latter form is normally completed at the border if arriving by air or sea but had just been introduced for advance completion online if arriving overland. Both forms ask where you are staying in the US. Two people had entered addresses which did not match on the two forms. They had a comma on one line of the address on one form which was missing on the other! The computer systems spotted the incompatibility and would not permit entry or editing of the forms. The entire staff of the border point got involved! After 2 hours the problem was resolved by deleting the ESTA and re-entering it to match the I94. Doesn't say much for pre release testing of the software.

I've been an infrequent visitor to the US over the years. I would always avoid a long distance route with a transfer in the US because my experience has invariably been one of difficulties at the border - even before 9/11.


I can remember the times in the 80s when one could just walk or driver over the border and nobody gave a hoot.

A plant I need to visit on business occasionally is about a 90 min drive from YUL, whereas the closest US airport is more like 2.5 hours and doesn't have direct flights from Europe. So flying itnto YUL is a no-brainer, one should think.

The first time I did this, the Canadian customs folks at the airport wouldn't believe I'd fly into Canada to do business in the US, and it took all three US folks at the border post about an hour to process me. I have to admit the land border has gotten a lot better since ESTA. The Canadians still ask a lot more questions than their US counterparts.

[Turkpilot]

They could have easily just told her to throw it away. Its not like she is importing apples of mass destruction. CBP are some of the biggest Aholes on the planet. I had a moron try to fine me 25,000 USD for a STICKER that wasn't on the plane. I had to get his superior involved to point out via email we had a conversation that we would be getting the sticker AFTER we arrived into the great land of the free(absolute BS)

Give some people power and it goes to their heads. The states is a hypocrisy at its finest.

[WingNut60]

They could have easily just told her to throw it away. Its not like she is importing apples of mass destruction. CBP are some of the biggest Aholes on the planet. I had a moron try to fine me 25,000 USD for a STICKER that wasn't on the plane. I had to get his superior involved to point out via email we had a conversation that we would be getting the sticker AFTER we arrived into the great land of the free(absolute BS)

Give some people power and it goes to their heads. The states is a hypocrisy at its finest.

Or, let someone think that they can get away with bringing in restricted goods by not declaring it and they will surely try.
And then what, just let them off scot-free?

In Oz, if Customs think that you've made a genuine mistake then they may generously just issue a written and recorded warning, first time anyway.

Trouble is, more often than not, it is not a genuine mistake. It is an attempt to deceive. A fair portion of the goods sold in Asian (and other exotic) groceries has entered the country in suitcases.

So, sorry. No sympathy.

[RAT 5]

The inside of Delta Airlines cabin is US territory, is it not. Therefore the apple was given to the pax on US territory. They disembarked onto US territory, so where is the import? :ugh:

[Laarbruch72]

The inside of Delta Airlines cabin is US territory, is it not. Therefore the apple was given to the pax on US territory. They disembarked onto US territory, so where is the import? :ugh:

No, not quite - Certain US laws apply on board US carriers of course (given the state of registration), but certainly nothing from a customs perspective. Otherwise you'd have to do your customs and border formalities before you boarded, would you not? Saying that an aircraft is "territory" of the state of registration is somewhat of an over simplification.

[groundbum]

I always thought, perhaps I'm wrong, that Government worked for us, the people?

The UK Police are on very thin ice these days as they need continuous reminding they can only police by consent, we haven't yet got to a Police state like in the US where citizens can be gunned down without comeback.

But it's a slippery slope, and this Apple thing is a mere micro-example of it..

G

[Loose rivets]

I'm surprised at the hard-heartedness of some of the posts. The woman popped an apple into her bag to eat later. I've done that so many times though I of course had been made aware of international protocols - developed over a working lifetime. This woman was just an ordinary paying passenger, and all that means in law.


Apple taken in trust from a literally qualified staff member who handed it to a client.

Between the routine interactions of the airline with the authorities, I'd say between them, the woman suffered entrapment.

Where was the apple loaded onto the aircraft? i.e., was it grown in the United States and held in a hopefully hygienic container until presented? (That isolation would work both ways.)

Confiscation is one thing, but a $500 fine of an ordinary member of the public is deterrent sentencing. A legal obscenity at the best of times.

Ordinary folk are trusting, forgetful, stressed when flying, they need considderation and basic kindness, not the bullying of some :mad: that can't get a skilled job and gets his kicks by making statements like the one in the report.

[ve3id]

https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2011/01/12/surprise_border_officials_seize_canadian_womans_kinder_egg.h tml

But then again you can find a reasonable agent. When studying computer engineering in Massachussetts I found that waiting to sign out tools to do the labs was a pain. So after the next visit home I brought my own. Big mistake! Stopped at a lonely border crossing and searched, the man said I could not bring tools into the USA. He wouldn't accept the above explanation but after a long conversation he noticed several ham radio antennas on my car and prompted me to say that the tools were to keep my equipment in working order, then he let me through!

[FlightlessParrot]

Reading the report on the BBC website, it seems the airline was at fault for not saying you could not take airline food off the aeroplane, and the border seems to have been unnecessarily tough about not giving the passenger the chance to dump the apple. In Aust and NZ, there are very prominent bins with reminders about the laws.

Leather goods are a red herring, since they are so heavily processed that there is no chance that they will introduce cattle diseases. Normally, a red herring would be OK, because processed, but you should still declare it.

[Ambient Sheep]

According to Woman 'fined $500 over free Delta Air Lines flight apple' - BBC News (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-43864113)

The apple was handed out in a plastic Delta Air Lines bag. Ms Tadlock said she did not remove it from the bag, instead putting it in her baggage for the second part of her journey to Denver, Colorado.

When the apple was found, Ms Tadlock told the agent that she had just received it from the airline and asked whether she should throw it out or eat it.

Instead the agent handed her a $500 fine.


When you put all that together this really does seem ridiculous, and Delta should have warned their passengers too.

EDIT: Just beaten by previous post!

[RAT 5]

Is $500 some written down standard or just at the whim of this particular agent? If the latter then I would challenge it and demand a breakdown of how the amount was arrived at. God forbid if she'd had 3 apples and need a remortgage.

[goudie]

‘Jobsworth’! The fine was not natural justice IMHO.

[krismiler]

With Australian customs, the biggest factor is concealment. If you are obviously hiding an item they will throw the book at you. You can declare anything and if it it’s prohibited they will dispose of it without fining you, but you must declare.

I’ve bought in honey and cheese from New Zealand without problems after ticking the box on the form but these items wouldn’t be allowed if they came from India.

[Mizuno boy]

True story, many years ago clearing customs in KFLL (Fort Lauderdale) with a private GA aircraft arriving from Canada.
In the galley was a wicker basket with whole fruit that was standard on the aircraft. Customs advised that the fruit would need to be destroyed, "no problem" we said and Customs took it and advised we were cleared into the U.S.
As we closed up the aircraft other pilot realizes we need the wicker basket back so goes in to see about it.
Upon entering the customs office he observes 5-6 customs agents destroying the fruit (eating it) he asked if we could have the basket back which they agreed to with somewhat embarrassed looks on their faces.
Can't make this stuff up.

Cheers
MB

[ShyTorque]

Mistakes can easily happen. I recently fell foul of security at a UK airport. In my haversack they (found by scanning the bag) a very small bottle of hand sanitiser. It was under the base flap of the bag, which is only secured on one edge so the bag folds up when not in use. I had no idea it was there. It was allowed to be taken on the flight because it was below 100ml, but it should have been in the mandatory plastic bag. I had even collected a couple of plastic bags from the stand prior to checking in, in case we needed them later. The last time the bag was in use my daughter had borrowed it for a long distance walking expedition (Nijmegen Marches, last summer). I accepted the bollocking and apologised.

[hoss183]

Yes some harsh replies here. Whilst the bottom line is that it was her responsibility to know the rules, not all pax are as seasoned as others, and theres some lack of care to be handing out banned items to customers.

I'm thinking of the man who was arrested in Dubai because he had poppy seeds on his clothing from a bagle.

I was once in the queue at LAX customs off a BA flight. There was an elderly English couple in front of me, possibly on their first visit to the US from the sounds of it. As it turns out they had packed their own lunchboxes for the flight, and on arriving at customs the guy quite politely told them that they could not bring fruit in, that they would have to throw it away or eat it. (No fine, sensible solution) So they did. The amusing part was that as i passed them they were also frantically eating their cheese sandwiches, their crisps and chocolate bars, I didnt have the heart to tell them... :)

[NWA SLF]

I'm surprised at the fuss here. The rule has been there as long as I can remember. Infrequent fliers have asked me about fruit they got on board and saved and I told them its best to leave it, that if they catch it there is a nasty penalty, and it doesn't matter that you got the food on the plane. I forgot to warm some relatives I was escorting on a trip - they had bought some doggie treats in Paris. I'm through customs waiting for the group and one of them, a 14 year old, came through crying saying her mommy was taken off by the police. Searched, found the doggie treats, confiscated and given a warning. From my experience this happens so frequently I'm surprised at the storm it has created although I admit everyone I know who has been stopped has gotten by with confiscation and a warning. Unless information has recently changed, it specifically states foodstuffs so clothing would of course be exempt. Hundreds of international flights and I admit that getting into the USA is the toughest I have experienced outside of Russia and Australia (I've never enjoyed being sprayed down with insecticide).

[galaxy flyer]

True story, many years ago clearing customs in KFLL (Fort Lauderdale) with a private GA aircraft arriving from Canada.
In the galley was a wicker basket with whole fruit that was standard on the aircraft. Customs advised that the fruit would need to be destroyed, "no problem" we said and Customs took it and advised we were cleared into the U.S.
As we closed up the aircraft other pilot realizes we need the wicker basket back so goes in to see about it.
Upon entering the customs office he observes 5-6 customs agents destroying the fruit (eating it) he asked if we could have the basket back which they agreed to with somewhat embarrassed looks on their faces.
Can't make this stuff up.

Cheers
MB

Reminds me of arriving, crew only, at Las Vegas from Spain. Customs officer at the customs shack, asks, “ where’s the caterer?” I replied, “we’re done and going to the Mandalay Bay, they have food.” It didn’t look amused. “You have to have the caterer take the international trash and food”. “Really, you don’t have a dumpster?” “no, that’s why the caterer is supposed to meet your flight.” Thirty minutes and $255 later our international trash was gone and we taxied over to Signature.


GF

[AN2 Driver]

Last time I entered the US, there were large billboards stating it was illegal to carry any fruit past this point. How much more do they need?

But it's typical that instead of learning the lesson, one goes on TV today and generates a scandal, combined with a lawsuit.

Passengers often enough get away with much too much these days, I suppose mostly due to the everpresent threat of lawsuits and spreading dirt all over the internet. Whether it's 23kgs of luggage and 6 kgs of handluggage which to many travellers translate to 50 kgs and 25 kgs respectively, whether there are big scandals when someone falls afoul of some countries harsh punishment on drug trafficking or whether people are too stupid to reckognize that fruits in any form are no-go in the US, the rules are for others.

If they were enforced properly, I guess for a while half of the airplanes would be empty when all passengers not obeying the elementary rules would be left behind or fined.

[sitigeltfel]

A few years ago, while driving back from Las Vegas to LA, we came across what we initially thought were tollbooths at the Nevada/California border. I was trying to figure out why we had missed them going the other way four days earlier when the charming agent (just kidding) in the booth asked if we had any fruit or veg in the car. I said no and he waved us through.
As we pulled away my wife asked me what I had done with the oranges I had bought at the farmers market in Santa Monica before heading to Vegas earlier that week.

Gulp!
:eek:

[lomapaseo]

Last time I entered the US, there were large billboards stating it was illegal to carry any fruit past this point. How much more do they need?

But it's typical that instead of learning the lesson, one goes on TV today and generates a scandal, combined with a lawsuit.

I quite agree :ok:

If I get caught speeding I don't call the news services and make a big deal out how easy it is to miss the posted speed limit signs and then blame the car dealer for selling me the car without a warning.

[Mad (Flt) Scientist]

Last time I entered the US, there were large billboards stating it was illegal to carry any fruit past this point. How much more do they need?

Same for me. In Vancouver, because it's pre-cleared US. At which point i realised that the apple and orange i had planned to eat in YVR (I was connecting) were now a problem. So i told the customs guy, who looked a bit exasperated and sent me into the "agriculture" penalty box. Where my apple was deemed to be safe but the orange not. Other than a 5-10 minute wait, no bad things happened and i definitely wasn't $500 lighter afterwards.

[bullfox]

Was it a non stop flight from Paris? Was the aircraft over the U.S. when she was given the apple? Are they giving away fruit so they don't get dinged for bringing it in to the states? Is Delta therefore aiding and abetting this criminal conduct?

[followthegreens]

I was stopped by officer with sniffer dog a few weeks ago in Miami. Turns out one of the apples from the crew food tray had rolled from the tray on the jumpseat into my flight bag. I had no idea it was there. I apologised to the officer and he let me go on my merry way without a fine. I have a feeling the person in this story who got fined $500 was less than apologetic and made a fuss. But maybe not. The max fine is $5000 so it could have been worse...

[FullWings]

I was recent witness to one of my crew being a bit offhand with a CBP guy and being sent to the back of the queue. On reaching the front again, he asked if she had any fruit, etc. and the answer was no. On checking her bag found several fruit-like items - as above $500 fine.

At that point I lost much of my sympathy. 10 years of going to the USA and you should know what they don’t like *and they gave you a chance*.

[obgraham]

Boy oh boy, we are a harsh bunch around here! "A rule is a rule". "She shoulda known". "Give 'em an inch and they'll take a pound".

What ever happened to common sense? It was a frickin apple for god's sake!

Here's an idea: Tell her she can't bring the apple in, take it away from her, then move on to more important issues of security and immigration & customs enforcement.

No, we don't need lawyers and lawsuits over this. Nor do we need flak-jacketed hardasses making a big deal out of an apple. We have lost all sense of proportion in our society.

[roybert]

I didn't see it mentioned in any of the articles but is it possible that she had been warned previously and that's the reason for the stiff fine this time????

[MarcK]

A few years ago, while driving back from Las Vegas to LA, we came across what we initially thought were tollbooths at the Nevada/California border. I was trying to figure out why we had missed them going the other way four days earlier when the charming agent (just kidding) in the booth asked if we had any fruit or veg in the car. I said no and he waved us through.
As we pulled away my wife asked me what I had done with the oranges I had bought at the farmers market in Santa Monica before heading to Vegas earlier that week.

Gulp!
:eek: My wife and daughter were returning to California from a horse show in New Mexico. The agent at the inspection point was training a new hire, so they needed to inspect every bit of paperwork. There were some apples, and my daughter fed them to the horses. New agent went berserk, but old agent said it was OK.

[tdracer]

I have a feeling the person in this story who got fined $500 was less than apologetic and made a fuss.

I suspect this was indeed a factor. As others have noted, there are prominent signs as you go through customs and immigration stating no fresh fruit (and a bunch of other things), but honest mistakes are seldom punished unless you mouth off.
Years ago I worked with a fellow who married a British woman that he'd met on a trip to Rolls - and couldn't get her a visa to join him in the US. The guy was very abrasive and confrontational (very difficult to work with, I was actually afraid of him a few times) - given I was able to get my foreign born wife a visa in a few days, I'm sure he pissed off to the wrong person and they decided to make his life difficult. He did eventually get his wife a visa, but it took over a year...

[RatherBeFlying]

Some decades ago, I had some BC peaches with me visiting Spokane. US Customs was fine as long as you had no cannabis;)

Returning to Canada with very few peaches, I was asked if I had any fruit, declared the remaining peaches which were prohibited entry even if from BC and directed to area with picnic tables to eat same and to use provided bins for the rest.

My current preoccupation crossing the border both ways is not forgetting to declare the bear spray. I was lectured not to have it in my hand, so best on the dash below the windshield.

[Gertrude the Wombat]

In Australia and New Zealand we have had these rules for generations. They are always strictly enforced, so the travelling public of both nations is conditioned into always being especially careful.
Some relatives got caught out by INTERNAL controls in Oz. Having just arrived in the country, on the way from the airport to their holiday cottage they stopped off at a supermarket to buy some food - which was confiscated from them at a roadblock a few miles down the road.

[packapoo]

Yes they often have internal controls in Oz if they're dealing with something they're trying to contain within a locality.

[PaxBritannica]

If people here can get all thin-lipped about a single apple (do any of you work for airport security, by any chance?) - I'm surprised you're not incandescent about the huge leaking bags of alien microbes that get let through customs by the million every day. They're called humans.

Do you know how much of YOU is actually not you at all, but bacteria, viruses, fungus and other alien lifeforms? (Answer: less than half.) You may put your apple virtuously in the cc's garbage bag, but as soon as you visit the airport toilet for a crap, you're releasing a bunch of stuff (including seeds - this is why tomato plants luxuriate around sewage outlets) into the local ecosystem that originated somewhere not local at all.

Ban people from travelling by air. Go on, you know you've always wanted to...

[Bend alot]

Unless information has recently changed, it specifically states foodstuffs so clothing would of course be exempt.


Hundreds of international flights and I admit that getting into the USA is the toughest I have experienced outside of Russia and Australia (I've never enjoyed being sprayed down with insecticide).



This was a link page one early post to a US customs card.


https://www.cbp.gov/sites/default/files/documents/CBP%20Form%206059B%20English%20%28Sample%20Watermark%29.pdf


This the Australian card.


https://www.homeaffairs.gov.au/EnteringorleavingAustralia/Documents/english-ipc-sample.pdf


And the Canadian.


https://www.cbsa-asfc.gc.ca/publications/forms-formulaires/e311-eng.html


But it seems in UK and Russia leather does not need to be declared.

[cargosales]

It cuts two ways ...

If you are rude or aggressive towards any Customs / Border Force when they ask you questions, or you are defensive about those questions then they are likely to throw the book at you. And rightly so.

By equal measure, if they give you 'a second chance' e.g. "please go and dispose of that fruit of yours on those picnic benches over there" then smile and say "thank you". Whether you eat all that fruit is up to you.

On the other hand, if they are just being a$$holes for the sake of it then there are things you can do .. like someone I knew who got pulled for accidentally having a very few ml too much perfume / after shave on him. And they really went to town on him .. :=

So he held up the offending item and asked if that was the problem .. "Yes, now pay up" was the uncompromising reply. Oops, he then 'accidentally' :E dropped it. It did apparantly make customs smell much nicer for a while.

[WingNut60]

Not sure about U.S. or U.K. arrivals procedure, but in Oz, Canada, NZ the gentleman in the uniform does not just ask you if you have any fruit, he is standing with a signed declaration in his hand in which you said that you had no prohibited items in your luggage, including fruit.

He / she will then ask you whether you understood the form that you signed. Frequently he will have singled you out because you have been profiled; normally by a basset or lab.
And that was just after you had walked past the signs and well-marked disposal bins explaining that carriage of foodstuffs is prohibited.

So, when he pulls an apple from your bag (the "it's just an apple" apple) he will ask you once again whether you understand that carriage of fruit is prohibited.
Remember, he is now holding up at eye level, specifically for you to see, your signed declaration.
He may even explain to you the apple diseases found at your port of departure and not yet found in Oz, Canada, etc. and why carriage of fruit is a) prohibited and b) punishable by law.

At this point, he has decided in his own mind, that you are just plain stupid or being deliberately deceitful (similar to stupid).
Now is your chance to demonstrate that you are not being deceitful and thereby avoid monetary sanction. Just confirm his suspicions.
Admit to gross stupidity, it should be easy for you. Embellish with bizarre (non-threatening) behaviour or statements if you think it will help.

On those grounds, he may just issue you with a warning, written and recorded or just verbal (yes, it does happen).
He has now, already decided your fate. Everything that follows will only exacerbate your position.

You can stand your ground and argue, either politely or otherwise.
You WILL now be issued with an on-the-spot fine, payable immediately.

You can decline to pay the on-the-spot fine, in which case your case will be passed into the judicial system for decision by a judge. You will need a lawyer to have any chance of winning your case.
You could take it to the media which can headline it as "It was only an apple".
Prosecution still have your signed declaration and your apple, in a plastic bag.
Chances of success; not zero but pretty bloody close to it.

So now you have a much enhanced penalty to pay, plus lawyers fees and a criminal conviction (I think, not sure. The judge may strike down the record).

So tell me again, was standing on your dignity really worth it?
After all, "it was just an apple".

[FlightlessParrot]

People who say "Just an apple" obviously have no connection with, or comprehension of, primary production.

NZ does not have fruitfly endemically. Every now and then, a few are found: they may have come in by an improperly treated commercial shipment, or it might have been someone who thought "It's just an apple." When these infestations are discovered, it is treated as an A-grade problem. In the 1980s, fruitfly were discovered in the (rich) eastern suburbs of Auckland. Somehow, it was decided that the cost effective way of dealing with this was aerial spraying by a converted DC 6. I have my doubts, but it was certainly a stirring sight to see something with round engines laying real chemtrails at low level. More recently, some flies were found near me. A zone was set up out of which no fruit or vegetable matter could be taken. It lasted months, though after a couple of weeks the big supermarkets were exempted. Doubtless a few cackheads ignored it, but mostly people accepted it as inconvenient but important. That's because even in NZ's biggest city, we know how important it is to keep out pests, plague, and parasites. As for the manners and practices of US border agencies, I've had mixed experiences--though often, they're very friendly. But biosecurity is not trivial, and one apple can make a difference--not to mention the problems of galloping sorites.

[Crownstay01]

And it's not just air travel: on the roads leading into Victoria in Australia, for tens of kilometres there are huge signs warning of the vegetation quarantine to keep out fruit fly, and the people at the border are serious about it.

And yet there aren't any quarantine inspections on trains crossing the border into Victoria from either NSW or SA - never have been. Same goes for NSW to Qld. I'm not arguing against the need for bio security, just pointing out the inconsistency.

[megan]

But biosecurity is not trivial, and one apple can make a differenceAustralia is now the only country in the world that is not infected by a particular disease that infects bees. New Guinea, previously free, now has the infection as of a decade or so ago. In the USA it is rife and Oz now has a large export market for disease free bees to pollinate Californian crops. Victoria agricultural land now has to deal with an invasive species that was introduced in the mid 80's. Our tropical wetlands are infested with introduced species that some one probably thought would look nice in the garden. What I don't understand is the people who declare that they have no food yet on inspection they have suitcase after suitcase loaded with the stuff. Once picked up at the carousel by a Beagle who detected the banana we had had in a bag, and left on the aircraft. Once crossing a border in Oz we had a load of fruit on board and had to surrender, asked if we were returning the same way, which we were, were invited to stop and take what we wanted.

[Nervous SLF]

People who say "Just an apple" obviously have no connection with, or comprehension of, primary production.

NZ does not have fruitfly endemically. Every now and then, a few are found: they may have come in by an improperly treated commercial shipment, or it might have been someone who thought "It's just an apple." When these infestations are discovered, it is treated as an A-grade problem. In the 1980s, fruitfly were discovered in the (rich) eastern suburbs of Auckland. Somehow, it was decided that the cost effective way of dealing with this was aerial spraying by a converted DC 6. I have my doubts, but it was certainly a stirring sight to see something with round engines laying real chemtrails at low level. More recently, some flies were found near me. A zone was set up out of which no fruit or vegetable matter could be taken. It lasted months, though after a couple of weeks the big supermarkets were exempted. Doubtless a few cackheads ignored it, but mostly people accepted it as inconvenient but important. That's because even in NZ's biggest city, we know how important it is to keep out pests, plague, and parasites. As for the manners and practices of US border agencies, I've had mixed experiences--though often, they're very friendly. But biosecurity is not trivial, and one apple can make a difference--not to mention the problems of galloping sorites.

Sorry if I sound a tad pedantic but I thought that the aerial spraying was in the 1990's? I do remember that several people claimed that they became ill because of it as it caused them breathing problems. In fact I knew a chap who was genuinely convinced his health suffered as a result and he seemed 100% genuine to me and my wife. Oh yes and he didn't try to claim compensation. :)

[ethicalconundrum]

Couple points here; 1 - The fine is assessed after the fact. The form allows the person to admit to the administrative violation, and agree to pay the fine within a few weeks. Or - one can ask for an administrative hearing by not checking the 'agree to pay' box. There's no downside to not checking the 'agree to pay' because you can always later admit to the violation, pay the fine and be done with it. Or - one can go to the admin hearing, have your case heard, and ask that the fine be reduced, or eliminated by apologizing and grovelling, etc. Of course, the fine may be imposed or even increased.

2 - The US(and AU, and NZ, etc) are huge producers of ag commodities. The San Joaquin, Imperial, and central valleys of CA are the richest production per pound on the Earth. Even a small infestation of a foreign agent can cost billions. In the late 50s early 60s the entire world production of Bananas was imperiled by an infestation. It could happen again. As noted already, we are in a crisis with bees right now, and the news is not good for many plants which rely on pollination.

3 - I'm not a big fan of a lot of admin rules, but really, for all that is holy, just check the effing box, and be done with it. Anytime I go through customs, I read the form. I fill out the form. I check the form again, then I go through my stuff mentally and verify. If I make a mistake and it's found out later, I agree with the agent, apologize, let them know it was an oversight, and if they fine me anyway, I don't check the 'agree to pay fine' box. Consult an atty, go to the hearing, ask for forgiveness, and take my chances.

I don't have a lot of pity for either the woman, or for the CBP agent. The one good thing to come out of this is it will reinforce to some small segment of the travelling public that reads this to follow directions.

[Turkpilot]

Or, let someone think that they can get away with bringing in restricted goods by not declaring it and they will surely try.
And then what, just let them off scot-free?

In Oz, if Customs think that you've made a genuine mistake then they may generously just issue a written and recorded warning, first time anyway.

Trouble is, more often than not, it is not a genuine mistake. It is an attempt to deceive. A fair portion of the goods sold in Asian (and other exotic) groceries has entered the country in suitcases.

So, sorry. No sympathy.

The delta FA handed it to her on the way OUT. So I am sure she asssuend it was ok. Yes sounds like a very HONEST MISTAKE

[ExSp33db1rd]

As UK Crew I often took Iceberg Lettuce home from the USA, ( don't ask, but the kids preferred them to the floppy leaf variety which was all we seemed to be able to buy in Darkest Dorset of that era ) then UK Customs announced that one needed some sort of agricultural certificate (name escapes me, Iso... something ) to import lettuce into the UK.

Walking back to the hotel in Seattle one morning, having completed the obligatory shopping commands at a Supermarket before returning to UK that night, I passed an office block entitled - USA Dept of Agriculture - so went inside and found a man in an office and asked if he could issue the necessary agricultural certificate to import lettuce to the UK ? He seemed to know what I was talking about, and agreed that he could, and proceeded to load a Remington typewriter with a sheaf of forms with interleaving carbon paper, then typed away for a bit, finally asking me my name, and then..... how many crates of lettuce will you be importing ? Just one, I replied. What ! he said, only one crate ? No, just one lettuce. After awhile he calmed down and asked WTF was I doing wasting his time ? Not my fault, I replied, the UK Customs demand a form for importing lettuce, and I'm taking one home for my kids tonight. Eventually he saw the funny side of it, and having taken so long, and more or less completed the form anyway, he rubber stamped and signed it and wished me the best of luck.

Arriving at Heathrow I declared Iceberg Lettuce on the crew Customs declaration, and an almost gleeful Customs Hofficer, foreseeing US Iceberg Lettuce available for his tea, promptly advised that I couldn't bring Iceberg Lettuce into the UK without the necessary agricultural certificate and he would have to confiscate it for destruction -at which I promptly gave him the cert. Collapse of stout party.

I never repeated the exercise, but sometimes it's fun to wind them up.

[WingNut60]

The delta FA handed it to her on the way OUT. So I am sure she asssuend it was ok. Yes sounds like a very HONEST MISTAKE

It's not quite what she said, but I can see that it may have been just an honest mistake anyway.


Tadlock says a Delta flight attendant handed her an apple toward the end of her flight from Paris.

I don't know what that means exactly, but typically they might give you a piece of fruit some time before TOD.
May have been later in this case, but not at the door on the way out. The FA probably had a reasonable expectation that the apple was about to be eaten.
Me? I'd have politely refused the apple if I didn't want it.

Also, before condemning the CBP person for being overly zealous I'd like to hear their side of the story.
I can't help but be suspicious that there is more to this story than the newspaper is telling us.

[Hipennine]

Given this was presumably a US aircraft (being Delta), where do they load the (sealed in a bag) apples, and what happens if there's a whole load of them left on the aircraft on arrival (or any foodstuffs for that matter)?

[McGinty]

No, not quite - Certain US laws apply on board US carriers of course (given the state of registration), but certainly nothing from a customs perspective. Otherwise you'd have to do your customs and border formalities before you boarded, would you not? Saying that an aircraft is "territory" of the state of registration is somewhat of an over simplification.

British Airways flight BA0001 from London City to JFK clears US Customs in Shannon. Presumably, a BA flight attendant giving you an apple after the Irish stopover would not be inducing you to commit a crime if you took it off the plane in the "Big Apple".

[l.garey]

Not apples, but liquid. A few years ago I flew into Atlanta. During the flight I helped with a sick passenger and on disembarking the steward gave me a bottle of wine as a thank-you. When I went through customs (I suppose it was) they confiscated the bottle as I was not allowed to import liquid, just as I could not board an aircraft carrying liquid, as we all know. But there was no explanation as to why I could not take my bottle in with me. The only possibility the agent offered was for me to go airside again, find my suitcase, put the bottle in it and then do the whole clearance again.

Can anyone explain that?

Laurence

[wiggy]

When I went through customs (I suppose it was)....

...... The only possibility the agent offered was for me to go airside again, find my suitcase, put the bottle in it and then do the whole clearance again.

Can anyone explain that?

First question would be: Can you clarify why were you going through customs without your suitcase?

Second question that possibly follows on from that: Were you by any chance connecting from ATL and your hold baggage was checked through onto another service?

[l.garey]

Wiggy: No, I was leaving the flight at ATL.
This was in 2006 so my memory may not be 100%. I recall that the agent gave me the option of putting the bottle in my checked bag. The main point is why I was not allowed to take a bottle into the country.

Laurence

[Sailvi767]

It appears you had a connecting flight. Passengers virtually worldwide are not allowed liquids exceeding 3 ounces. The customs area is not secure since you have access to your checked luggage which can legally contain items such as knives, guns, liquids ect..
Leaving customs for the above reasons you are subject to the same rules as if you were entering the airport. You could have placed the bottle in your checked bag and everything would have been fine. If you did not have a connecting flight and exited to the non sterile area you would also have been fine.

[Sailvi767]

Missing in this discussion is the fact that the woman entered the country using global entry. This is a trusted traveler system where you normally skip all checks other than a very infrequent random checks. It works on the honor system and in order to be enrolled the woman had to watch a video and acknowledge she was aware of what is and is not allowed. since It functions on the honor system violations are treated more severely than had she entered customs the normal way. In addition she would have been asked and had to check she did not have any banned items at the kiosk.

[wiggy]

l. garey
No, I was leaving the flight at ATL.

I got that, but what happened next?

Did you walk/take a train/took a bus or car out of the airport? Without your hold baggage??

Or is there a chance you got off the first flight, and got onto another at ATL, but your hold bags were tagged through to final destination, so remained airside??

In that case then as Sailvi has said it is possible the bottle was removed from you because of onwards carriage rules regarding handbaggage, and was not due to a customs ban on the import of liquids into the States.

I've been in and out of the US plenty of times from well before 2006 and have taken liquids in without a problem, declaring stuff as/if appropriate.

[Bend alot]

Missing in this discussion is the fact that the woman entered the country using global entry. This is a trusted traveler system where you normally skip all checks other than a very infrequent random checks. It works on the honor system and in order to be enrolled the woman had to watch a video and acknowledge she was aware of what is and is not allowed. since It functions on the honor system violations are treated more severely than had she entered customs the normal way. In addition she would have been asked and had to check she did not have any banned items at the kiosk.



Well this is news, any links

[Sailvi767]

Well this is news, any links

Woman fined US$500 for taking 'free' apple from Delta flight through customs | South China Morning Post (http://www.scmp.com/news/world/united-states-canada/article/2142849/woman-pays-us500-taking-free-apple-delta-air-line)

Not sure why link is not clickable. You will have to cut and paste it. Working now for some reason, perhaps mods fixed it.

[aterpster]

Given this was presumably a US aircraft (being Delta), where do they load the (sealed in a bag) apples, and what happens if there's a whole load of them left on the aircraft on arrival (or any foodstuffs for that matter)?
I often picked up the domestic portion of a flight that had arrived from Europe. The cleaners weren't allow aboard until customs sprayed the remaining food stuffs. Then the company disposed of it in a prescribed manner. May be different now. I retired in 1990.

[RevMan2]

Headline *should* be:
Woman fined $500 for contravening bio-security regulations.

Then put it in JetBlast

[WingNut60]

Woman fined US$500 for taking 'free' apple from Delta flight through customs | South China Morning Post (http://www.scmp.com/news/world/united-states-canada/article/2142849/woman-pays-us500-taking-free-apple-delta-air-line)

Not sure why link is not clickable. You will have to cut and paste it. Working now for some reason, perhaps mods fixed it.

As I suspected, a bit more to this story than the original report might have you believe.

And, sorry Sailvi767, but the following is not entirely true.

It appears you had a connecting flight. Passengers virtually worldwide are not allowed liquids exceeding 3 ounces.Boarding aircraft in much of Asia and Australia with duty free liquor / perfume, etc is entirely acceptable, depending on destination and provided it has been purchased and bagged at an airside duty free outlet.


That sort of excludes a fair swathe of worldwide, virtually or otherwise.
Domestic flights within Australia are not subject to restrictions on how much liquid, aerosols and gels you can carry onboard.

Admittedly you may run into problems at the next transit airport, but boarding is often permissible.

[Sailvi767]

As I suspected, a bit more to this story than the original report might have you believe.

And, sorry Sailvi767, but the following is not entirely true.

Boarding aircraft in much of Asia and Australia with duty free liquor / perfume, etc is entirely acceptable, depending on destination and provided it has been purchased and bagged at an airside duty free outlet.


That sort of excludes a fair swathe of worldwide, virtually or otherwise.
Domestic flights within Australia are not subject to restrictions on how much liquid, aerosols and gels you can carry onboard.

Admittedly you may run into problems at the next transit airport, but boarding is often permissible.

It’s been my experience that you can’t clear security with duty free. All duty free must be purchased inside the secure zone. Might be different in some places. Once inside the secure zone you are free to purchase any liquids you like from water to alcohol.

[WingNut60]

It’s been my experience that you can’t clear security with duty free. All duty free must be purchased inside the secure zone. Might be different in some places. Once inside the secure zone you are free to purchase any liquids you like from water to alcohol.

As in "depending on destination and provided it has been purchased and bagged at an airside duty free outlet."

You may well have problems making a transit transfer with liquor bagged and sealed at point of origin.

[l.garey]

I don't want to bog the original discussion down with my adventures with a bottle of Lufthansa wine. But:

I got off the flight, which was FRA-ATL at ATL. I can't recall how ATL is arranged for customs etc. On hind sight, and after the comments in the last couple of posts on the subject, I suppose I had passed customs with my checked bag, before having my bottle confiscated at the last security desk just before the outside world. What the agent must have said to me was probably that in order not to lose my wine I would need to put the bottle in my checked bag, then recheck it. Something like that, which didn't sound reasonable. Not a good idea at any time, especially having just flown FRA-ATL.

So the story is limited to my still being surprised to be told that I could not take a bottle of wine, an in-flight gift, into Atlanta.

Laurence

[Lascaille]

So the story is limited to my still being surprised to be told that I could not take a bottle of wine, an in-flight gift, into Atlanta.

There's no such restriction and there never has been. You were a victim of theft.

[wiggy]

So the story is limited to my still being surprised to be told that I could not take a bottle of wine, an in-flight gift, into Atlanta.

Well colour me confused...I’ve entered the States from Europe (including through ATL, a multitude of times) and over the years have seen a multitude of passengers get through the American “system” without handing over their booze (in their hand baggage, bought airside at the airport of departure) so all I can say is your experience sounds very strange...

[Sailvi767]

There's no such restriction and there never has been. You were a victim of theft.

This is incorrect. You can not take a bottle of wine through security into the sterile area at any US, EU or for that matter almost anywhere in the world. The ability to do that ended 15 or more years ago. You can’t even take a bottle of water.
What a few are not grasping is that once you clear customs and immigration you are not in the secure area of the airport. To get back into the secure area you must be screened by TSA just as if you arrived at the airport for your first flight segment. If you purchased duty free at the departure airport it will also be taken from you unless you place it in your checked bag and recheck it after customs. You will have your checked bag with you clearing customs so it’s no problem to do so.

[Sailvi767]

Well colour me confused...I’ve entered the States from Europe (including through ATL, a multitude of times) and over the years have seen a multitude of passengers get through the American “system” without handing over their booze (in their hand baggage, bought airside at the airport of departure) so all I can say is your experience sounds very strange...

You have not seen a passenger go through any US airport, clear customs and catch a connection with hand luggage containing liquids. You may have seen them carrying liquids through customs and immigration but they either checked them after that or surrendered them. There is one exception. If you had a US customs preclearance facility at the departure airport (Dublin ect.) In that case you deplane into the sterile area and do not require rescreening.

[MarkerInbound]

Given this was presumably a US aircraft (being Delta), where do they load the (sealed in a bag) apples, and what happens if there's a whole load of them left on the aircraft on arrival (or any foodstuffs for that matter)?

Any international arriving flight will have all the trash and left over food collected and disposed of as "regulated garbage." Usually burned at a on airport incinerator.

[20driver]

Having crossed the US border many many times by land and air I would say that the woman did something to piss the inspector off. They have discretion and I have benefited from it more than once. Quick tip, the right answer always includes "Sir", admit a mistake and never argue.
If she did use Global Entry it may well be the fine is automatic. As others have pointed out it is an honor system, you tick the boxes and in this case she effectively lied and that will piss the inspector off big time. It would not surprise me if her Global Entry was cancelled. When you sign up there are plenty of warnings what will happen if you cheat. At $500 she was lucky. I'm surprised she was not strip searched.
EDIT - I see her Global Entry was cancelled. No doubt she is flagged in the system and I'd suggest clean underwear for the next international trip.

[A Squared]

Wiggy: No, I was leaving the flight at ATL.
This was in 2006 so my memory may not be 100%. I recall that the agent gave me the option of putting the bottle in my checked bag. The main point is why I was not allowed to take a bottle into the country.

Laurence

When you say that you were "leaving the flight" do you mean that you were going to be immediately boarding another flight for someplace else, or do you mean that after going through customs you were going to walk out of the terminal and catch a cab to your hotel? Either way, I have never heard of anyone clearing US customs without their checked luggage. Unless you were boarding a connecting flight to another country. Were you continuing on to Canada or Mexico from Atlanta?


Edit: I see that I missed this bit:

I got off the flight, which was FRA-ATL at ATL. I can't recall how ATL is arranged for customs etc. On hind sight, and after the comments in the last couple of posts on the subject, I suppose I had passed customs with my checked bag, before having my bottle confiscated at the last security desk just before the outside world. What the agent must have said to me was probably that in order not to lose my wine I would need to put the bottle in my checked bag, then recheck it.

Well, it's pretty clear what happened. (and pretty ordinary and usual) . From the bold comment that you had checked your bag and the remedy offered was to retrieve it, put the wine in it and them recheck it again, it's clear that you were not exiting onto the streets of Atlanta. If you were going to "the outside world" your baggage would have been in your hand. You were going to be boarding a connecting flight, after clearing customs with your checked luggage, you had re-checked your luggage for the next flight segment and you were going through security for your next flight, with a prohibited item. (bottle of wine) . It's no mystery. After you clear customs, you have to go through security screening before boarding your next flight. It should be obvious why; there are items which are permissible in your checked luggage which are prohibited to take on board in your carry on:. Knives, Firearms (depending on where you're traveling) bottles of wine. When you clear customs, you claim your checked baggage, and therefore potentially have access to prohibited (to carry on) item in your checked baggage. So after you've had access to your checked baggage, you have to go through screening again before being permitted back into the secure are of the terminal, exactly as if you'd just been dropped off at the airport and were boarding your first flight of the journey.

Glad I was able to solve this decade old mystery for you. ;)

[A Squared]

So, now that I've solved l.garey's mystery, maybe someone else can solve mine. Why do you have *outbound* agriculture inspections leaving Hawaii on a domestic flight to another place in the US? To be clear, it is not the US Department of Agriculture, it's the State of Hawaii Agriculture department. Your baggage will be inspected for agricultural products (mostly pineapple) you are "smuggling" *out* of Hawaii ... so why does the State of Hawaii care what you take out of the state of Hawaii? I could understand inspecting *inbound* passengers for pineapple from someplace else ... might harbor disease of insects which could be detrimental to pineapple growing industry in Hawaii. For the same reasons, I could understand, say, the State of California agriculture authorities inspecting for pineapple *arriving* from Hawaii. California also grows pineapple, and they do have agriculture inspections at state borders for citrus particularly. I could see the logic for either. But why, if I buy a pineapple in the grocery store on Maui, and toss it in my suitcase to take back to Alaska, will the State of Hawaii inspect my luggage and confiscate my pineapple?

[Hokulea]

A Squared - it's actually a USDA rule, not Hawaii state and it's simply that Hawaii might have its own species of critters that could cause agricultural problems on the US mainland. Whether this is sensible or not is another matter, but there have been some serious issues in Hawaii (e.g., ohia rot and banana bunchy) and guess they're just being cautious. I think the Hawaii State of Agriculture dept does the screening as that's the most efficient way to it. To have the screening done at the arrival airport would, of course, be rather expensive and complicated to arrange as Hawaii flights arrive at domestic terminals.

https://www.aphis.usda.gov/aphis/resources/travelers-int/ct_hawaiian_products

[A Squared]

A Squared - it's actually a USDA rule, not Hawaii state and it's simply that Hawaii might have its own species of critters that could cause agricultural problems on the US mainland. Whether this is sensible or not is another matter, but there have been some serious issues in Hawaii (e.g., ohia rot and banana bunchy) and guess they're just being cautious. I think the Hawaii State of Agriculture dept does the screening as that's the most efficient way to it. To have the screening done at the arrival airport would, of course, be rather expensive and complicated to arrange as Hawaii flights arrive at domestic terminals.

https://www.aphis.usda.gov/aphis/resources/travelers-int/ct_hawaiian_products

Thanks. that's the first explanation I've see that makes sense. I guess I was a little misled by the fact that it was HI state inspectors doing it.

[eal401]

Well. All this over an apple. And a bunch of insufferably smug aviation "professionals" bemoaning the passenger in question. Typical PPRuNe!

If only Americans were as officious about people carrying guns into their schools and machine-gunning kids in the corridors. Still, we know for many Yanks "hey, that's life"

:yuk:

[WingNut60]

Well. All this over an apple. And a bunch of insufferably smug aviation "professionals" bemoaning the passenger in question. Typical PPRuNe!

If only Americans were as officious about people carrying guns into their schools and machine-gunning kids in the corridors. Still, we know for many Yanks "hey, that's life"

:yuk:

Not so much bemoaning the passenger in question (though that too) as bemoaning those who can not see that "an apple" can be a serious threat to agriculture, that deliberately misleading an appointed official "'cause it's just one apple" is wrong or just for being supercilious.

[Lascaille]

deliberately misleading an appointed official

Please present your proof of this accusation. It's entirely possible she had filled in the landing card before receiving the apple, or that the apple simply didn't register with her as being declarable, she just unconsciously shoved it into her bag along with the other airline freebies you inevitably get handed throughout the trip.

[WingNut60]

Please present your proof of this accusation. It's entirely possible she had filled in the landing card before receiving the apple, or that the apple simply didn't register with her as being declarable, she just unconsciously shoved it into her bag along with the other airline freebies you inevitably get handed throughout the trip.

No proof whatsoever. I had previously given her the benefit of the doubt.
But in light of the reported cancellation of her Global Entry and why that would happen she has forfeited that courtesy.

Now I'll just follow the observation of Gertrude - The lady doth protest too much, methinks

[Old King Coal]

This is incorrect. You can not take a bottle of wine through security into the sterile area at any US, EU or for that matter almost anywhere in the world. The ability to do that ended 15 or more years ago.

Yes you can, indeed I did exactly that only two days ago at a major European airport... with 3x standard sized bottles of very nice red wine... where perhaps the fundamental difference is that I'm typically going to work via VIP terminals (rather than those ones chock full of riffraff) and Corporate is such a breath of fresh air after the airlines. Veritably, it's definitely one law for the rich, and one for the poor. ;)

[Sailvi767]

Yes you can, indeed I did exactly that only two days ago at a major European airport... with 3x standard sized bottles of very nice red wine... where perhaps the fundamental difference is that I'm typically going to work via VIP terminals (rather than those ones chock full of riffraff) and Corporate is such a breath of fresh air after the airlines. Veritably, it's definitely one law for the rich, and one for the poor. ;)

What you post is very true however flying corporate you never entered the airport sterile area.

[ThreeIfByAir]

When you say that you were "leaving the flight" do you mean that you were going to be immediately boarding another flight for someplace else, or do you mean that after going through customs you were going to walk out of the terminal and catch a cab to your hotel? Either way, I have never heard of anyone clearing US customs without their checked luggage. Unless you were boarding a connecting flight to another country. Were you continuing on to Canada or Mexico from Atlanta?


Edit: I see that I missed this bit:



Well, it's pretty clear what happened. (and pretty ordinary and usual) . From the bold comment that you had checked your bag and the remedy offered was to retrieve it, put the wine in it and them recheck it again, it's clear that you were not exiting onto the streets of Atlanta. If you were going to "the outside world" your baggage would have been in your hand. You were going to be boarding a connecting flight, after clearing customs with your checked luggage, you had re-checked your luggage for the next flight segment and you were going through security for your next flight, with a prohibited item. (bottle of wine) . It's no mystery. After you clear customs, you have to go through security screening before boarding your next flight. It should be obvious why; there are items which are permissible in your checked luggage which are prohibited to take on board in your carry on:. Knives, Firearms (depending on where you're traveling) bottles of wine. When you clear customs, you claim your checked baggage, and therefore potentially have access to prohibited (to carry on) item in your checked baggage. So after you've had access to your checked baggage, you have to go through screening again before being permitted back into the secure are of the terminal, exactly as if you'd just been dropped off at the airport and were boarding your first flight of the journey.

Glad I was able to solve this decade old mystery for you. ;)

I think you're all wrong, actually. I don't think this is the case any longer since they opened the new terminal at ATL, but at several US airports (I've seen it at PDX, MCO and SEA, and the design of ATL before the F pier opened suggests strongly that it was the case there), the customs and immigration inspection takes place at a remote pier, and the only way from there to the outside world is through the regular airside. So you go through immigration, pick up your bags, go through customs, then even if you're exiting the airport you recheck your bags and go through security again. Once you take the transit or equivalent to the main terminal, you pick up your bags again at baggage claim and walk out.

So his original story definitely holds water.

[PukinDog]

Global Entry passenger should have known better, the rules re fruits and vegetables are clear and have been in force forever. Signs are also posted clearly at entry points. She didn't forget she had the apple. On the contrary, she admitted that she put it into her bag to save until later. By her own admission, this shows that it's presence was purposeful, not a "mistake".

Where she really ran afoul and earned the fine was by not declaring it. Stupid, really. Again, this is a Global Entry passenger who should know the rules on what's not allowed, what's required to be declared, and what need not be. If she had simply declared it, she would have most likely been allowed to throw it away while verbally being educated by the agent that Agricultural rules don't get set aside just because this or that airline gave away the food enroute, for consumption enroute. "Saving it for later" is purely on her.

The idea that "The airline gave it to me inflight and didn't specifically announce that I can't take it into the country despite all the forms and signage telling me I can't, so therefore Agricultural and declaration rules at the destination don't apply" is an absurd, childlike notion.

Since Global Entry works on a higher level of trust, Global Entry passengers will be held to a higher standard when it comes to knowing and adhering to the rules. It's not out of line that her excuse while breaking a basic importation rule and non-declaration earns a stiffer punishment. Her response is typical of someone who can't take responsibility for their own actions. Whining publicly, blaming others, claiming she's a victim of unfairness, and believing somehow that the rules (and punishment for breaking them) shouldn't apply to her is, unfortunately, a more and more common response. What she's really saying is we're supposed to feel sorry for her for being stupid, irresponsible, and too lazy to read.

She applied for Global Entry so I do assume she can read, so I've got no sympathy for someone who is now feigning ignorance because she got caught. If she was confused regarding the rule as it pertains to fruit given by the airline, she would have declared it. Global Entries are held to adhering to the rules or asking, it's not a free pass. She's not a Global Entry anymore, and rightly so.

[Lascaille]

She didn't forget she had the apple. On the contrary, she admitted that she put it into her bag to save until later. By her own admission, this shows that it's presence was purposeful, not a "mistake".


So when my wife gets out something to use for later, then half an hour later spends ten minutes looking for that same exact thing, she's just doing it to mess with me? I'll tell her. I'll tell myself as well because 'I'll just put thing-that-needs-to-go-in-the-car next to my car keys so I remember it later' more often than not turns into 'where the hell did I put that thing'. Clearly I'm just doing it to wind myself up.

Columnar dwelling made of animal teeth, remove yourself from it.

[A Squared]

I think you're all wrong, actually. I don't think this is the case any longer since they opened the new terminal at ATL, but at several US airports (I've seen it at PDX, MCO and SEA, and the design of ATL before the F pier opened suggests strongly that it was the case there), the customs and immigration inspection takes place at a remote pier, and the only way from there to the outside world is through the regular airside. So you go through immigration, pick up your bags, go through customs, then even if you're exiting the airport you recheck your bags and go through security again. Once you take the transit or equivalent to the main terminal, you pick up your bags again at baggage claim and walk out.

So his original story definitely holds water.

OK. I suppose you're correct about that. I've only connected out of Atlanta on international arrivals so wasn't thinking about that. Regardless, that's still the explanation of why his wine was confiscated; Whether he was boarding a connecting flight, or leaving the airport; he was going through security screening to re-enter the secure area.

[JammedStab]

So when my wife gets out something to use for later, then half an hour later spends ten minutes looking for that same exact thing, she's just doing it to mess with me? I'll tell her. I'll tell myself as well because 'I'll just put thing-that-needs-to-go-in-the-car next to my car keys so I remember it later' more often than not turns into 'where the hell did I put that thing'. Clearly I'm just doing it to wind myself up.

Columnar dwelling made of animal teeth, remove yourself from it.

What your wife does is irrelevant to the incident at hand. I'm Global Entry and go through US customs on a regular basis. The only consumable I bring off the aircraft is water. I do tell other crewmembers that we can bring as much food as we want into the US... as long as it is somewhere in our gastro-intestinal tract.

I heard a story of someone bringing food in and honestly asking the officer and then having it confiscated and subsequently having issues with customs, so I don't even try that. No food, no problems.

As for the food, on a the cargo flights(where I was had time to observe the grooming process) I did arriving at a US port of entry, there are red plastic trash bags for the food which is then incinerated.

[PukinDog]

So when my wife gets out something to use for later, then half an hour later spends ten minutes looking for that same exact thing, she's just doing it to mess with me? I'll tell her. I'll tell myself as well because 'I'll just put thing-that-needs-to-go-in-the-car next to my car keys so I remember it later' more often than not turns into 'where the hell did I put that thing'. Clearly I'm just doing it to wind myself up.

Columnar dwelling made of animal teeth, remove yourself from it.

The woman never claimed she forgot about the apple in her bag. On the contrary, she stated she put it in her bag to eat during her onward flight, which is a purposeful act. She had plenty of time to think about or review the rules if she had a question beforehand, or declare it in order to obtain an answer from Customs at the entry point. If she had declared it the agent would have said "No it's fruit, says right there", tossed it, and sent her on her way.

She didn't do any of those things, however. She attempted to bring it through, undeclared, knowing it was in her bag. She's only whining because she got caught doing so, was rightfully fined, and also lost her Global Entry privileges/access because she can't be trusted to even seek an answer for a listed item (fruit or vegetable), but instead made the assumption the rule didn't apply to her and her item.

You and your wife's personal memory problems/failings when it comes to locating items in your own house are irrelevant to this Global Entry passenger being ignorant-of or ignoring the very simple and clearly written and posted rules with respect to items she must declare or not bring into the country.

As for your lost-but-not-lost household items, I bet if you and your wife posted signs and created little cards that itemized each plus clearly stated their location, something akin to how Customs writes/posts rules on what's banned and what must be declared, you wouldn't make the "mistake" of forgetting where they were for any longer than it took you to read. That's not coincidental. In fact, the entire point of writing things clearly on prominently-displayed signs and cards that one must sign after filling-out is to do just that; to ensure one doesn't remain ignorant and/or "forget stuff".

Of course, maybe this woman is the type of person who doesn't believe she should have to make an effort to read anything in order to get through life, so if information isn't spoon-fed into her head by someone else through an easier form of media then the plain, written word she can't be blamed for whatever happens. Therefore, she may believe any negative effect is "unfair" because her ignorance must be someone else's fault. Or, she knew full well but thought the chances of her being searched were low-to-nil and her "But Delta gave it to me" excuse would fly if she were. Sorry, Ms. Global Entry-no-more, it didn't.

[Gauges and Dials]

That's a mighty high horse you're on there.

A couple of years ago I emptied out my briefcase for a periodic cleaning and noticed with some surprise a large Leatherman type tool that included a 4" knife blade -- with which I must have passed through security (domestic, US) for three or four consecutive segments.

I am fully aware that carrying a knife into the sterile area of an airport is a serious crime. I had previously placed the tool in my bag to carry to my car to change a headlamp, and simply forgot that it was there.

Obviously I did not intentionally bring the knife to the airport, but applying the same logic you seem to be applying to this passenger, you could correctly argue that (a) the knife was not in my bag by mistake, since I had put it there on purpose, (b) my presenting my bag for security screening was an implicit claim that it did not contain contraband, and (c) that I am therefore a bad person who deserved to have been fined and have my security credentials taken away. That seems a bit extreme to me.

[RevMan2]

She attempted to bring it through, undeclared, knowing it was in her bag

She had, in fact, categorically declared on the Customs form, that she had NO fruit and signed the form.
Just what part of the question (to be answered with YES or NO)

"I am (We are) bringing in fruits, vegetables, plants, seeds, food, insects"

didn't this person understand

[Sailvi767]

The woman never claimed she forgot about the apple in her bag. On the contrary, she stated she put it in her bag to eat during her onward flight, which is a purposeful act. She had plenty of time to think about or review the rules if she had a question beforehand, or declare it in order to obtain an answer from Customs at the entry point. If she had declared it the agent would have said "No it's fruit, says right there", tossed it, and sent her on her way.

She didn't do any of those things, however. She attempted to bring it through, undeclared, knowing it was in her bag. She's only whining because she got caught doing so, was rightfully fined, and also lost her Global Entry privileges/access because she can't be trusted to even seek an answer for a listed item (fruit or vegetable), but instead made the assumption the rule didn't apply to her and her item.

You and your wife's personal memory problems/failings when it comes to locating items in your own house are irrelevant to this Global Entry passenger being ignorant-of or ignoring the very simple and clearly written and posted rules with respect to items she must declare or not bring into the country.

As for your lost-but-not-lost household items, I bet if you and your wife posted signs and created little cards that itemized each plus clearly stated their location, something akin to how Customs writes/posts rules on what's banned and what must be declared, you wouldn't make the "mistake" of forgetting where they were for any longer than it took you to read. That's not coincidental. In fact, the entire point of writing things clearly on prominently-displayed signs and cards that one must sign after filling-out is to do just that; to ensure one doesn't remain ignorant and/or "forget stuff".

Of course, maybe this woman is the type of person who doesn't believe she should have to make an effort to read anything in order to get through life, so if information isn't spoon-fed into her head by someone else through an easier form of media then the plain, written word she can't be blamed for whatever happens. Therefore, she may believe any negative effect is "unfair" because her ignorance must be someone else's fault. Or, she knew full well but thought the chances of her being searched were low-to-nil and her "But Delta gave it to me" excuse would fly if she were. Sorry, Ms. Global Entry-no-more, it didn't.

Random checks for global entry passengers are so rare I suspect she had never had one and may not have even known they exist. Probably never occurred to her she would be caught. It is however also possible she just forgot about it.

[Lascaille]

It is however also possible she just forgot about it.

No, it isn't. It's been clearly stated in the thread by more than one poster that humans retain irrevocably the memory of all actions they purposely perform. Can't you read? I'd ask if you forgot how to read but my spellchecker is flagging up the word 'forgot' since the latest update because it's been removed from the dictionary.

[PukinDog]

That's a mighty high horse you're on there.

A couple of years ago I emptied out my briefcase for a periodic cleaning and noticed with some surprise a large Leatherman type tool that included a 4" knife blade -- with which I must have passed through security (domestic, US) for three or four consecutive segments.

I am fully aware that carrying a knife into the sterile area of an airport is a serious crime. I had previously placed the tool in my bag to carry to my car to change a headlamp, and simply forgot that it was there.

Obviously I did not intentionally bring the knife to the airport, but applying the same logic you seem to be applying to this passenger, you could correctly argue that (a) the knife was not in my bag by mistake, since I had put it there on purpose, (b) my presenting my bag for security screening was an implicit claim that it did not contain contraband, and (c) that I am therefore a bad person who deserved to have been fined and have my security credentials taken away. That seems a bit extreme to me.

You haven't watched the woman's statements, have you. Obviously you haven't, or you'd realize how entirely irrelevant your experience of forgetting your Leatherman is, and how off you are thinking what I've said is in any way "extreme". In her statement (whine-fest), she admits she knew it was in her bag. She stated she put it there to eat on her next connecting (domestic) flight because "she wasn't hungry at the time".

Why some keep insisting on equating what she said she did to a lapse of memory (she never claimed to have forgotten it was in her bag), let alone it similar to their own offerings of irrelevant anecdotes re household items and TSA checkpoints is beyond me. By her own admission, she didn't make a "forgetful mistake", she said she purposely put it in her bag to bring into the country in order to eat on her next flight. How can that be so difficult to understand that some keep assigning "forgetfulness" to the situation?

You attempting to equate your forgetfulness resulting in an "implicit claim" of no contraband and how unfair it would be for you to be fined/clearance surrendered with this woman who knowingly attempted to carry it though while explicitly declaring she didn't have a declarable item is an extreme attempt to compare her apple to your orange. Yours wasn't a conscious act, hers was. Aside from both occurring at airports involving banned items, there is no similarity.

That high horse you think I'm on is just an illusion generated from you not reading or listening to the woman's own words.

[PukinDog]

She had, in fact, categorically declared on the Customs form, that she had NO fruit and signed the form.
Just what part of the question (to be answered with YES or NO)

"I am (We are) bringing in fruits, vegetables, plants, seeds, food, insects"

didn't this person understand
Your point is spot on.

She had made a declaration that she was not bringing in fruits, etc. Clear as day question, one that clearly DOESN"T make exceptions for "fruit that was handed to you by the flight attendant of your inbound flight that you may be saving for later".

[DaveReidUK]

No, it isn't. It's been clearly stated in the thread by more than one poster that humans retain irrevocably the memory of all actions they purposely perform. Can't you read? I'd ask if you forgot how to read but my spellchecker is flagging up the word 'forgot' since the latest update because it's been removed from the dictionary.

Yes, as we have just been reminded, she consciously put in in her bag with the intention of eating it at some later time, ergo it couldn't possibly have slipped her mind that it was in there or that the regulations/declarations that had probably never had any bearing on any of her previous Global Entries were relevant on this occasion.

At least I think that's how the argument goes ...

[PukinDog]

No, it isn't. It's been clearly stated in the thread by more than one poster that humans retain irrevocably the memory of all actions they purposely perform. Can't you read? I'd ask if you forgot how to read but my spellchecker is flagging up the word 'forgot' since the latest update because it's been removed from the dictionary.

Perhaps you should read what the woman said about her own actions and why she did them, then you'd realize nobody is saying people don't forget things, like you assume. Her excuse is that because Delta gave her the apple, it was okay to keep for later and not declare.

[PukinDog]

Yes, as we have just been reminded, she consciously put in in her bag with the intention of eating it at some later time, ergo it couldn't possibly have slipped her mind that it was in there or that the regulations/declarations that had probably never had any bearing on any of her previous Global Entries were relevant on this occasion.

At least I think that's how the argument goes ...

Well, one doesn't get to retain Global Entry privileges by being "forgetfully" stupid when it comes to basic, easy-to-follow, longstanding importation and declaration rules written clearly and displayed prominently in multiple places. Even if she has the memory of a goldfish, she can still read, and theres no dispute that she knew she was entering the U.S. Everyone with Global Entry knows, and it's stressed, that violating the rules will result in having it taken away.

Global Entry is accompanied by being held to a higher standard for knowing and adhering to the Entry rules. She failed, got caught, and now has to enter with those who aren't held to that standard.

Seems the other argument goes something like; "People forget things. I have forgotten things myself, ergo this lady just "forgot" the apple and/or the rules, or "forgot" that there are rules, or "forgot" she could read them, or "forgot" the read rules apply to her, or "forgot" to how to read entirely. Therefore, the Customs man enforcing Agricultural importation rules and applying penalties for breaking those rules is a big meanie because she just "forgot"."

I forgot to turn off the lights off the other day leaving the house, but I'm pretty sure that doing so doesn't give me a free border pass or valid excuse for ignorance or disregard for the rules entering the couple dozen countries I do every year, let alone my own.

[DaveReidUK]

Well, one doesn't get to retain Global Entry privileges by being "forgetfully" stupid when it comes to basic, easy-to-follow, longstanding importation and declaration rules written clearly and displayed prominently in multiple places. Even if she has the memory of a goldfish, she can still read, and there's no dispute that she knew she was entering the U.S. Everyone with Global Entry knows, and it's stressed, that violating the rules will result in having it taken away.

With the Global Entry privilege goes a higher standard for knowing the Entry rules and when they apply/what to declare. She failed, got caught ignoring them, and so from now on she'll have to enter with those who aren't held to that higher standard.

Yes, you could argue that, although there's a difference between "violating" rules and "ignoring" them, albeit the end result is the same.

Seems the other argument goes something like; "People forget things. I have forgotten things myself, ergo this lady just "forgot" the apple and/or the rules, or "forgot" that there are rules, or "forgot" she could read them, or "forgot" the read-able rules apply to her, or "forgot" to how to read entirely. Therefore, the Customs man enforcing Agricultural importation rules and applying penalties for breaking those rules is a big meanie because she just "forgot".

Some might well argue that, although I don't agree that the second proposition necessarily follows from the first.

It's perfectly possible, and consistent with the known facts, to argue that:

a) she genuinely forgot all about the apple, and therefore that it qualified as contraband, until it was hauled out of her bag
b) the customs official was simply doing his/her job
c) she paid the price for her forgetfulness (possible exacerbated by a bit of attitude, though one could hardly expect her to admit the latter to the media)

[PukinDog]

Random checks for global entry passengers are so rare I suspect she had never had one and may not have even known they exist. Probably never occurred to her she would be caught. It is however also possible she just forgot about it.
















.....From just one of many accounts..
Crystal Tadlock was traveling on the first leg of her flight (http://people.com/food/most-lavish-first-class-plane-cabins-in-the-world/) home from Paris when she received an apple wrapped in plastic with a Delta Air Lines (http://people.com/human-interest/delta-apologizes-california-family-flight/) logo displayed on the packaging as part of an in-flight meal, KDVR reports (http://kdvr.com/2018/04/20/arvada-woman-trying-to-stomach-500-fine-for-free-airline-snack/). Tadlock told the local Denver news outlet that she wasn’t hungry, so she stashed the apple (http://people.com/food/easy-apple-recipes-fall/) in her bag and planned to eat it on her second flight (http://people.com/home/southwest-passengers-on-deadly-flight-receive-5000-checks-and-sincere-apologies-from-airline/) back to Denver.

Tadlock plans to fight the ticket in court, and she’s upset because she could possibly lose her Global Entry Status. (http://people.com/celebrity/9-tips-for-defeating-tsa-lines-and-holiday-traffic-this-memorial-day/) “It’s really unfortunate someone has to go through that and be treated like a criminal over a piece of fruit,” Tadlock said.

U.S. Customs and Border Patrol says that “privacy policy prohibits CBP from discussing the details of any individuals specific inspection, however all agriculture items must be declared. Prohibited items that are not declared by a passenger are confiscated and disposed of by CBP. More importantly, civil penalties may be assessed for failure to declare prohibited agricultural products and may range up to $1,000 per first-time offense for noncommercial quantities.”

Although Tadlock said she was “frustrated” with the way customs handled the situation, she told KDVR that she wishes Delta had warned customers not to take the fruit off the plane or not passed out the snack at all.

Delta has videos in their in-flight entertainment system that detail what passengers need to know when going through customs.

“Delta recommends all passengers comply with U.S. Customs and Border Protection rules and regulations when entering the country,” the Delta (http://people.com/pets/delta-changes-pet-policy-behavior-vouchers/) spokesperson said. “U.S. Customs has clear warnings at the entry point and on the declaration form that you must declare fruit that is brought into the country. It appears that this passenger did not declare the apple and it was discovered upon inspection.”

This entire incident is more a case of; Clueless woman feels entitled to not know the rules, adhere to the rules, that Delta should advise her of USDA Rules verbally because she's too lazy to read or adjust their inflight snacks, is "upset" that she may lose her GE privilege because she got caught, and is now fishing for victimhood status using the media in a display so ignorant she doesn't even realize she's displaying her own ignorance not only of the Rules she was supposed to know but also how criminals are actually treated.

Oh my, she's upset, no more privilege. "Treated like a criminal"....Really? Where are the handcuffs lady?..no, she was treated exactly like someone who didn't declare an agricultural product and tried to bring it into the country; her fruit was taken and she was fined. End of. The fact that this vapid little story of someone stupid getting caught and fined by Customs for undeclared fruit has become "news", let alone "international news" on the basis of her whining just illustrates how quickly the media is jumps on any non-story involving an airline or airports and attempts to manufacture controversy.

If this woman made it this far in life without knowing why there are Agricultural importation rules, then she can't be helped and isn't to be trusted. It's abundantly clear she can't be because she automatically looks for someone else to blame for her own failings, believing that Delta should have told her, or not given out fruit at. Same if she has Global Entry status and thinks it makes her immune from being checked. A laughable assumption only an illiterate child could be excused for making. It's all in black and white, but this woman clearly operates based on how she feels or what she's experienced before, believing this is a substitute for knowledge.

Hopefully, if she takes it to court like she says she will the judge will fine her the other $500 of the $1000 in an attempt to shock her into accepting responsibility for her actions and ignorance like an adult instead of crying like a wronged, entitled princess. Perhaps since she insists on acting and thinking like a school age child, he can appropriately sentence her to detention until she writes a 5,000 word essay on invasive species and crop losses for wasting the court's time. If forced to, she might actually learn something.

If she were attempting to do the same into Australia, NZ, or the UK, she certainly wouldn't be getting so many joining her Pity Party.

What's being lost here is the underlying reason why this non-story rose to prominence and this whiny woman got airtime; She feels/claims she got "treated like a criminal" by CBP and she's also pointing one of her fingers at Delta, suggesting they are partly to blame for it. She says as much herself...

"I understand the laws and the department of agriculture doesn't want certain insects in the US. But once again, the apple is from Delta and I think that's the most important part of this story.

Many people just love to hate on the airlines, CBP, TSA, etc so this non-story has a couple of the correct little triggers to catch the eye and empathy of some for this poor, poor mistreated lady who claims she "understands the laws". Apparently, she's self-deluded about that as well because obviously she doesn't.

[Lascaille]

Uh, stop the press but it is possible to do something (put an apple in your bag for later) then forget all about it, then - having forgotten all about it - fill in a form saying you have no fruit, having honestly forgotten about the fruit. It's called memory. It's fallible. The level of toxicity and venom you're bringing to this thread is quite disturbing tbh.

[Sailvi767]

No, it isn't. It's been clearly stated in the thread by more than one poster that humans retain irrevocably the memory of all actions they purposely perform. Can't you read? I'd ask if you forgot how to read but my spellchecker is flagging up the word 'forgot' since the latest update because it's been removed from the dictionary.

i guess I am not human. I forgot I grabbed a banana once and went through customs. Found it a week later in my bag. Did not look so good!

[PukinDog]

Uh, stop the press but it is possible to do something (put an apple in your bag for later) then forget all about it, then - having forgotten all about it - fill in a form saying you have no fruit, having honestly forgotten about the fruit. It's called memory. It's fallible. The level of toxicity and venom you're bringing to this thread is quite disturbing tbh.

What part of this don't you understand....
Tadlock told the local Denver news outlet that she wasn’t hungry, so she stashed the apple (http://people.com/food/easy-apple-recipes-fall/) in her bag and planned to eat it on her second flight (http://people.com/home/southwest-passengers-on-deadly-flight-receive-5000-checks-and-sincere-apologies-from-airline/) back to Denver.

Not once in any of her statements has the woman ever said she "forgot it was there". Not once. Yet you insist on trotting-out the "maybe she forgot the apple/people are fallible/bad memory" scenario attempting to assign it to her, something she didn't/doesn't even do herself. If she had forgotten, it would surely be her claim, yet it isn't. If you would bother reading her statements you would know this instead of offering-up your memory-lapse theory that don't apply in her case. No, her claim is that Delta gave her the fruit so it should have been okay, and if it wasn't, Delta should have warned her. In all her excuses, however, there is nothing about being "forgotten". She knew she had it.

I'm going only on what she has said her motivations were. You're attempting to assign her memory loss based on it existing as a general thing despite its glaring omission in her statements. What's next? You''ll suppose she forgot that she forgot? Has forgotten forgetting?

So, this (former) Global Entry passenger stated that she "planned to eat it on her 2nd flight back to Denver", and put it in her bag. That right there should tell you something: a Global Entry passenger should know beforehand she won't be allowed to bring a piece of fruit in, and will absolutely know they'll be asked at the kiosk if she has any to declare. Declaring it means one has to go speak to an Agent. Select "No" to the question means you'll breeze right through. In her case, after answering "No" she was breezing through and got stopped and randomly searched. Did she say she forgot? No, she claimed she thought it was okay because Delta gave it to her.

To reiterate; The woman never said she forgot it was in her bag. She still doesn't claim that even though millions of people forget millions of things every single day, on that particular day for that woman the apple she got on the airplane wasn't one of those things.

Btw, pointing out irrelevancies doesn't equate to "toxicity and venom" so you can safely un-disturb yourself. Also, how much do you actually know about what Global Entry passengers are supposed to know? Are you familiar with it at all?

[DaveReidUK]

Not once in any of her statements has the woman ever said she "forgot it was there". Not once. Yet you insist on trotting-out the "maybe she forgot the apple/people are fallible/bad memory" scenario attempting to assign it to her, something she didn't/doesn't even do herself. If she had forgotten, it would surely be her claim, yet it isn't. If you would bother reading her statements you would know this instead of offering-up your memory-lapse theory that don't apply in her case. No, her claim is that Delta gave her the fruit so it should have been okay, and if it wasn't, Delta should have warned her. In all her excuses, however, there is nothing about being "forgotten". She knew she had it.

Yes, that's one explanation. She decided knowingly to risk her Global Entry status, and a potential $1000 fine, so that she would have something to munch on her connecting flight. :ugh:

It's equally feasible that, being caught in possession of said illicit piece of fruit, she offered the excuse that she thought was most likely to get her off, and decided that "I forgot I had it" wouldn't cut the mustard. Having instead offered the explanation that Delta had given her it, which clearly didn't work either, she can hardly now backtrack and claim that if she had remembered, she would have declared it.

There is nothing in the reported facts that disproves either hypothesis.

[PukinDog]

Yes, that's one explanation. She decided knowingly to risk her Global Entry status, and a potential $1000 fine, so that she would have something to munch on her connecting flight. :ugh:

It's equally feasible that, being caught in possession of said illicit piece of fruit, she offered the excuse that she thought was most likely to get her off, and decided that "I forgot I had it" wouldn't cut the mustard. Having instead offered the explanation that Delta had given her it, which clearly didn't work either, she can hardly now backtrack and claim that if she had remembered, she would have declared it.

There is nothing in the reported facts that disproves either hypothesis.

Oh, there's plenty she's said to support she isn't bright enough to foresee the consequences of her own actions...
1. She stated she thinks the most important part of the story is that Delta gave her the apple and didn't warn her, so we know she's flippant about her own responsibilities when it comes to knowing what a Global Entry passenger should know.
2. She imagines she's been "treated like a criminal", so we know her sense of reality is skewed.
3. She imagines she has a court case because Delta provided her the apple.

Most people who make an honest mistake give an honest answer. Your hypothesis isn't supported by anything the woman has said, and indeed it involves supposing she purposely told an outright lie to the Agent in an attempt to cover up what is a....as it's been repeatedly pointed out by oh so many.... common, human mistake of omission. Which brings us to...

4. Your hypothesis suggests she lied herself into being at odds with her declaration answer, whereas if she had indeed forgotten the apple and then told the truth to the Agent, her answer would accurately reflect the situation. The declaration says simply "I am bringing in any fruits..etc etc". and she answered 'No". If she had merely forgotten she had the apple and she answered the Agent honestly "I forget I had it", then her explanation backs up the incorrect answer "No" on the declaration. In this scenario the woman hasn't lied, she has merely made a mistake for whatever reason.

In your version she has likewise forgotten she had the apple, but then inexplicably lies in a way that tells the Agent she knew she had the apple all along. Whether she's blaming Delta or not, admitting she knew she had it at odds with what she had just answered on the declaration at the kiosk minutes before. So not only does she make a mistake, she lies for good measure while the agent is standing there listening to her say things that while she may believe sounds like a good excuse to his ears, at the same time means she knowingly lied at the kiosk she was just at. Furthermore, she elaborated on the lie in a way that pointed to her not knowing she couldn't "save it for the next flight" even as a Global Entry. And still she's persisting in her lie, not only to the media but has indicated she plans to pursue repeating the lies to a judge in a courthouse as. Highly unlikely.

I maintain, and go by her statements. If she had just forgotten, she would have said so. The "she forgot" hypothesis is now resting on her imagined lies that not only make her look dumber and put her in hotter water, but that she'll pursue media attention using them and legal action to tell her lies to a judge instead of just paying her fine and shutting up.

[DaveReidUK]

Your hypothesis isn't supported by anything the woman has said, and indeed it involves supposing she purposely told an outright lie to the Agent in an attempt to cover up

No, it doesn't. What she told the agent (that Delta had given her the apple) wasn't a lie. It was perfectly true and AFAIK nobody except you is disputing that.

For all we know, she may have judged (wrongly) that it was a better excuse than her forgetfulness.

I stand by my view that the facts support that hypothesis at least as strongly as they support yours. You have yet to supply any proof that they don't.

[PukinDog]

No, it doesn't. What she told the agent (that Delta had given her the apple) wasn't a lie. It was perfectly true and AFAIK nobody except you is disputing that.

For all we know, she may have judged (wrongly) that it was a better excuse than her forgetfulness.

I stand by my view that the facts support that hypothesis at least as strongly as they support yours. You have yet to supply any proof that they don't.

I'm going by the woman's own words. What are you going on to suppose her forgetfulness? Something she never claimed or mentioned that's clear, not even after the fact when she's had time to think about it while moaning to the media. So that leaves pure speculation based on nothing more than "people can forget things" unless you have something more. I don't need to disprove your speculation when you have absolutely nothing to support it. The only "facts" here would be her words, the only excuse she herself has given.

I find it kind of amusing that others are riding-in to provide her with more excuses she hadn't thought of herself. She certainly doesn't have any trouble saying how she was "treated like a criminal", after all. I believe she can make her own things up just fine.

She answered "No" at the kiosk. She was searched and found out she didn't declare it. Put to question, why didn't she declare it, she uses the excuse "Delta gave it to me" which explains nothing when it comes to declaring "I am brining in Fruits, veg..etc.. Yes or No" and answering "No". Nothing about "I forgot" was spoken anywhere and you can be absolutely sure she was asked why she answered "No" on her form. "Delta gave it to me, Delta should have told me" aren't even in the ball park and yet she claims it's the most important thing.

No wonder they fined her. Like the kiosk, they probably couldn't get a straight answer out of her either except one that basically says "Delta gave it to me, I thought it was okay, its just an apple". None of it explains why she answered "No". Neither does your speculation. I could hypothesize a sudden case of cross-eyedness at the kiosk and it would have as much weight.

[svhar]

Where I live all fruit is imported. You can take an apple from Sweden to Denmark or Spain and nobody cares. What is the problem in the USA?

[obgraham]

Where I live all fruit is imported. You can take an apple from Sweden to Denmark or Spain and nobody cares. What is the problem in the USA?Well although I'm on record here as being somewhat sympathetic to the woman's outcome, I do live in an area that produces the 2/3 of the US apple supply. Along with cherries and loads of other fruit. The potential harm from outside fruit entering a fruit-growing area is enormous. Here we have strict controls to avoid the apple maggot fly. Asian countries have specific requirements on how American fruit is treated before allowing it into their countries. All very necessary.

My argument in this case is that the agent could have simply confiscated the apple, told the woman why, and moved on to a more significant issue. But no, everyone had to get their shorts in a bunch over this one.

[Bend alot]

She had, in fact, categorically declared on the Customs form, that she had NO fruit and signed the form.
Just what part of the question (to be answered with YES or NO)

"I am (We are) bringing in fruits, vegetables, plants, seeds, food, insects"

didn't this person understand

I have no understanding on the Global Processing system or how it works practically, but it seems that actual paper forms are not used. I assume it is some maybe touch screen process after deplaning.

Is this a smooth flowing process or is it very busy (hurry up) type area?

Do you declare leather being an animal product (the following line on the form to the above bolded) if not why is it not required to be declared?

I find the packaging of the apple strange, are oranges and banana's packaged in plastic bags too? (serious question)

[svhar]

This could only happen in the USA. The rest of the world has commom sense.

[JammedStab]

This could only happen in the USA. The rest of the world has commom sense.
I have to laugh at all these ridiculous excuse-makers. They say...hey its only one apple. Well then...is it OK for two apples, after all it is only one more than one apple. If two apples are OK then what about three apples. One can keep going on forever. A dozen apples and a banana? After all, it is only a single banana on top of the dozen apples which is only one more than 11 apples. Where does it stop?

How about...don't try to smuggle food in when you are not supposed to.

As for the stupid statement of ..."it could only happen in the USA" and common sense statements...you only prove your bias and/or ignorance. We had a pilot get a fine along with the company for trying to bring an apple into Japan,

So stop your whining/excuse-making and follow the rules. Forgot about the apple? OK, could happen. Try to tell that to the officer. Admit that you were breaking the rules, even if it was a lie to cover up your forgetfulness will possibly bring a punishment.

Kind of like telling the traffic cop that you were intentionally speeding because you don't want to admit that you forgot what the speed limit is.

In either case, one should be happy that there is no fine for being stupid if they actually thought that would make things better.

[A Squared]

Where I live all fruit is imported. You can take an apple from Sweden to Denmark or Spain and nobody cares. What is the problem in the USA?

The problem is that fruit imported from another country may be bearing insects or disease which could then infect/infest the crops within the country destroying the crops. the disease or insects are likely to be far more destructive than in their country of origin because of the lack of local predators or resistance of local strains to the effects. This isn't some sort of hypothetical fear. Look up Chestnut Blight and Dutch Elm Disease which were accidentally introduced to the US and devastated the local trees. The Chestnut Blight was particularly destructive. It essentially wiped out an entire species of tree, The American Chestnut.

This could only happen in the USA. The rest of the world has commom sense.

BS. Australia and Japanese far more strict and enthusiastic about their bio-security than the US. I haven't traveled to New Zealand, but I've heard that they are also. I guarantee you that if you had an apple in your baggage and claimed you didn't entering Australia, and thier fruit sniffing dogs found it, and the agent believed you had done it intentionally, you'd very likely get a fine there too.

[Gauges and Dials]

That high horse you think I'm on is just an illusion generated from you not reading or listening to the woman's own words.

I don't particularly think that the $500 fine or cancellation of Global Entry are overkill. And that's not my point.

My point is that this is a world in which countries as varied as China, Turkey, India, Egypt, Hungary, Poland, and the United States seem to have moved well past flirting with fascism and are now enthusiastically kissing fascism on the lips. And what I'm reading on here, from you and others, first with the United passenger fiasco in Chicago and again with this woman, in your seeming delight in her punishment, is hard to interpret any way other than approval of of an authoritarian take on life. I didn't much like that movie in the original German, and I don't like it much now either; I find authoritarianism personally offensive.

[PukinDog]

Well although I'm on record here as being somewhat sympathetic to the woman's outcome, I do live in an area that produces the 2/3 of the US apple supply. Along with cherries and loads of other fruit. The potential harm from outside fruit entering a fruit-growing area is enormous. Here we have strict controls to avoid the apple maggot fly. Asian countries have specific requirements on how American fruit is treated before allowing it into their countries. All very necessary.

My argument in this case is that the agent could have simply confiscated the apple, told the woman why, and moved on to a more significant issue. But no, everyone had to get their shorts in a bunch over this one.

If the woman had answered "Yes" at the Global Entry kiosk to the "bringing in fruit" question it would have directed her to the Agent handling Declared items, who would have mostly likely handled it just as you suggest; confiscation along with some verbal education that fruit doesn't become exempt from importation controls just because the airline gave it away as an inflight snack. If she had not been a Global Entry passenger, even answering 'No" she may have gotten much the same with no fine.

But she was a Global Entry passenger (as the Agent would be very well aware) and as such pre-educated on the basic details of entering the country and, therefore, held to a higher standard in the honor system. She blew her privilege by giving an excuse ("Delta gave it to me, didn't warn me") to the Agent that indicates, at best, she made her own determination that the particular fruit was somehow exempt from clear importation rules erring on the side of "Oh, It's okay", never bothering to find out if that was the correct assumption. She was on her way out when they pulled her up in a random search. So she lost the trust, and is the only one with the bunched shorts; moaning to the media, upset she lost her Global Entry privileges, still dishing-up the "Delta gave it to me" excuse because she STILL believes "that's the most important thing to the story". The Agent in question fined her $500, so he actually showed some leniency by levying only one-half the Stupidity Tax he could have.

Yes, a Stupidity Tax. As a pre-educated Global Entry she crossed the threshold from being merely "Ignorant" into "Stupid" when she assumed on the side of "Oh, it's okay" while acting as her own Customs Agent for something as basic and clearly, repeatedly, explained as fruit importation. People get fined and penalized every day for this sort of thing at entry points across the U.S. and around the world entering other countries, but for some reason the media has chosen to give this "typical suburban woman coming home from Paris" a microphone and airtime as if it's an unusual or important story because she believes her penalties were somehow unfair and she claims she's been "treated like a criminal".

The media is only enabling her continued stupidity, and by taking her groundless grousing seriously only encourages others to believe it's "unfair" as well. If she does end up in court, it's sure she'll lose but the media won't do a follow-up that cites details because it'll reveal and emphasize just how clueless she is. She's been cast in the media as a sympathetic figure, but the judge isn't going to have any sympathy.

[DaveReidUK]

I don't need to disprove your speculation when you have absolutely nothing to support it.

Nor I yours, for the same reason. I'm not the one who's repeating the same assertion over and over again in the hope that we'll all give up and accept it as the only possible explanation, when there are other scenarios that fit the facts.

Looks like we're done here.

[PukinDog]

This could only happen in the USA. The rest of the world has commom sense.

You need to travel a bit more if you truly believe this, and you'll find that the U.S. is actually less stringent that some when it comes to declaring items, what needs to be declared, and the penalties for not doing so. Australia is well known for it's stringent declaration requirements and penalties. Not only for fruits and vegetables, but all food. Wood items are also included. For instance, if you buy a souvenir made or partially made from wood, it falls under this...

www.agriculture.gov.au/.../goods/.../personal_imports_of_timber_and_wooden_relate (https://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/rumours-news/www.agriculture.gov.au/.../goods/.../personal_imports_of_timber_and_wooden_relate)...
2. Declare it. All wooden, bamboo and related articles entering Australia must be declared to a departmental officer on arrival, whether or not you believe you have complied with all import conditions. How you import the item will determine how you declare it.

Got that?....Declaring the item is a "Must Do", no matter what the person believes about the item. Same for the lady in the U.S. with the apple...declaring is a "Must Do". Of course, unlike the U.S. the entire cabin of an aircraft going into Australia will have to be sprayed to comply with their Disinsection requirements, along with proof, signed forms, including the lot number of the cans sprayed, and if you're traveling within Australia internal checks and controls are common as well. For instance, if you buy fruit...say, bananas from the Philippines... at a grocery store in one part of the country you may not be able to bring it into another, it'll be confiscated. When you go to a grocery store at your destination to replace your bananas, you may end up buying new ones grown and imported from the same Philippine banana plantation as the ones they just confiscated.

Don't think it's much more lenient in NZ. Try to bring some honey on a sandwich into NZ, and animal importation and quarantine rules are just as severe and inflexible as Australia. When Christchurch was hit with the earthquake a few years ago and search and rescue teams that specialize in rubble rescue from the U.S. and Japan were dispatched with their heavy equipment to help find those missing and buried that might have been alive, New Zealand ordered those teams to leave one of there most valuable assets.. their highly- trained, human-sniffing dogs who's specialty is to find people buried under rubble....behind because NZ would not waive their animal quarantine rules, not even with lives at stake.

Japan is another country where they take their Agricultural importation rules extremely seriously. If you arrive at a Japanese airport with no garbage incinerator set up for international trash, all the trash on the aircraft will have to remain and be locked-up on the aircraft, and flown out when the aircraft departs. Being fined for ignoring their rules is common, woe to anyone not declaring what they should, it will come as no surprise.

But the one thing all countries who have rules banning and declaring agricultural good and animals will tell you, they are common sense. Invasive species cost the agricultural industries billions and no controls or enforcement wind up wiping out native plant and animal species. And in every one of those countries there are penalties for disregarding the rules, and every day people get penalized for disregarding them. Just because you're not seeing it on TV or isn't reported by the BBC parroting the latest US media nonsense doesn't mean it isn't happening.

[PaxBritannica]

I'm going by the woman's own words. What are you going on to suppose her forgetfulness? Something she never claimed or mentioned that's clear, not even after the fact when she's had time to think about it while moaning to the media. So that leaves pure speculation based on nothing more than "people can forget things" unless you have something more. I don't need to disprove your speculation when you have absolutely nothing to support it. The only "facts" here would be her words, the only excuse she herself has given.

I find it kind of amusing that others are riding-in to provide her with more excuses she hadn't thought of herself. She certainly doesn't have any trouble saying how she was "treated like a criminal", after all. I believe she can make her own things up just fine.

She answered "No" at the kiosk. She was searched and found out she didn't declare it. Put to question, why didn't she declare it, she uses the excuse "Delta gave it to me" which explains nothing when it comes to declaring "I am brining in Fruits, veg..etc.. Yes or No" and answering "No". Nothing about "I forgot" was spoken anywhere and you can be absolutely sure she was asked why she answered "No" on her form. "Delta gave it to me, Delta should have told me" aren't even in the ball park and yet she claims it's the most important thing.

No wonder they fined her. Like the kiosk, they probably couldn't get a straight answer out of her either except one that basically says "Delta gave it to me, I thought it was okay, its just an apple". None of it explains why she answered "No". Neither does your speculation. I could hypothesize a sudden case of cross-eyedness at the kiosk and it would have as much weight.

I suspect the average passenger (eg. me) would interpret 'I am bringing in fruits, veg etc.' to refer to something specifically being imported by the passenger - such as a live plant or seeds - that have been sourced in another country. I would understand the reasons for these being a problem. I'm not sure I would necessarily see a piece of food given to me by cabin crew on board the plane as being an import in the same sense. It could have been a muffin, or a yoghurt, or a chocolate bar. I would assume the airline wouldn't have served it to me unless it had been 'approved' in some sense. This seems to me basic common sense in the normal world of paying passengers, tired after a long journey.

I'd be interested to know if airlines emphasise to passengers that fruit-based snacks served on board should be disposed off before disembarking? I don't think I've ever heard such an announcement.

[ExSp33db1rd]

Sorry, not going to wade back through 128 posts, but has the original Country of Birth of the apple been determined, e.g. was it a piece of,say, Californian fruit in the first place, that had been given a long ride ?

If so wot's the problem, unless it had been sprayed with some Russian nerve gas whilst on the transit in Paris ?

[megan]

If so wot's the problemYou have to be able to prove the providence of the item by means of an agricultural declaration. Think the airline is going to go to that trouble when they hand out an item of food?

Brought some wooden items in following a trip, duly declared and no issues following inspection. If they have doubts they offer a fumigation process for a small fee, if you don't wish to pay it's destroyed.

[finfly1]

This could only happen in the USA. The rest of the world has commom sense.

Enormously disappointed in this comment Svhar. It is totally unwarranted and, I would have thought, quite unworthy of you.

[WingNut60]

I suspect the average passenger (eg. me) would interpret 'I am bringing in fruits, veg etc.' to refer to something specifically being imported by the passenger - such as a live plant or seeds - that have been sourced in another country. I would understand the reasons for these being a problem. I'm not sure I would necessarily see a piece of food given to me by cabin crew on board the plane as being an import in the same sense. It could have been a muffin, or a yoghurt, or a chocolate bar. I would assume the airline wouldn't have served it to me unless it had been 'approved' in some sense. This seems to me basic common sense in the normal world of paying passengers, tired after a long journey.

I'd be interested to know if airlines emphasise to passengers that fruit-based snacks served on board should be disposed off before disembarking? I don't think I've ever heard such an announcement.

It seems that your "basic common sense" is not necessarily universal and probably not terribly common.
Why would you "assume the airline wouldn't have served it to me unless it had been 'approved' in some sense" if the sense is anything other than it being fit for consumption.
I certainly would not assume that the airline has pre-approved it for import into the destination country.

For Australia at least (and probably NZ, Canada, etc.) the declaration lists numerous classifications of items which must be declared.
By declaring them they may be allowed through, depending on source and packaging. I don't like your chances with the yoghurt (dairy) and probably not the muffin (grains, fruit).
By not declaring any of them, or any other food item, you will be liable for a fine.

The penalty is not normally related to the nature of the item. It's not $100 for an apple, $200 for two and $1000 for a squid.
The penalty is for "making a false declaration".

As per my previous post, if the officer suspects that you have been telling fibs he may give you a chance to change your mind, plead insanity, or what ever.
If you try to bluff your way through then expect to be fined.
That is pretty well understood in these parts.

I'd be interested to know if airlines emphasise to passengers that fruit-based snacks served on board should be disposed off before disembarking?

Yes, sometimes. Not always.
International flights into Australia frequently have a short documentary from the Oz Quarantine authorities on the entertainment system. Not specifically from the airline, but close enough.
IIRC this comes up during descent whether you select it or not.

[A Squared]

I'd be interested to know if airlines emphasise to passengers that fruit-based snacks served on board should be disposed off before disembarking? I don't think I've ever heard such an announcement.

A few years ago, I was traveling fairly often the Australia, usually on Delta, but occasionally on QANTAS or Virgin. I recall one or more of those airlines giving warnings not to disembark with foodstuffs from cabin service. I don't recall for sure which one(s) did that.

[IBMJunkman]

How is the left over fruit handled by Delta? And/or customs.

[A Squared]

How is the left over fruit handled by Delta? And/or customs.

Stays on the plane or goes into sealed garbage bags which are incinerated.

[Sailvi767]

Sorry, not going to wade back through 128 posts, but has the original Country of Birth of the apple been determined, e.g. was it a piece of,say, Californian fruit in the first place, that had been given a long ride ?

If so wot's the problem, unless it had been sprayed with some Russian nerve gas whilst on the transit in Paris ?

Who knows where the fruit originated from. It would however have been boarded in Paris. It was in the snack bag passed out during the last part of the flight.

[Maoraigh1]

What might have left eggs/spores on a Californian apple while it was outwith California?

[PukinDog]

I suspect the average passenger (eg. me) would interpret 'I am bringing in fruits, veg etc.' to refer to something specifically being imported by the passenger - such as a live plant or seeds - that have been sourced in another country. I would understand the reasons for these being a problem. I'm not sure I would necessarily see a piece of food given to me by cabin crew on board the plane as being an import in the same sense. It could have been a muffin, or a yoghurt, or a chocolate bar. I would assume the airline wouldn't have served it to me unless it had been 'approved' in some sense. This seems to me basic common sense in the normal world of paying passengers, tired after a long journey.

I'd be interested to know if airlines emphasise to passengers that fruit-based snacks served on board should be disposed off before disembarking? I don't think I've ever heard such an announcement.
Undoubtedly there are some, as you say, "average, normal passengers" who make that incorrect assumption, although I disagree that assumption falls into the basic common sense category. The question asked on the Declaration Form and/or Kiosk is very specific, straightforward, and unqualified requiring a simple "Yes or No" answer. Common sense would tells person to read the question and answer it honestly and straightforwardly. A passenger with common sense knows one can't decide for themselves what exceptions and exemptions exist. A passenger with common sense doesn't invent qualifiers if they aren't spelled-out. They aren't trick questions, or hard questions, it isn't a test. They're designed and worded to be easily understood by average, normal passengers. However, I can see how someone with the propensity to make life difficult for themselves by overcomplicating simple ideas or tasks because they don't read instructions, read things into what's not written, doesn't pay attention or try to absorb information could make that assumption. But all the aforementioned are traits of not those having little or no common sense. Average, normal passengers who read the question and simply answer the question as written aren't going to have a problem. Problems only arise when people try to get creative or cute. That being said....

This lady, however, wasn't an "average, normal passenger", not in the eyes of the CBP. She asked-for and was granted Global Entry status with expedited entry privileges, which means she had previously put herself forth to the CBP as a person who could be trusted, completed a CBP vetting process that includes being pre-educated on the Rules of entry, declaration requirements, etc,. and met a background check standard that showed a personal history of adhering to rules and laws in general. She would have gone through a face-to-face interview with the CBP and been fully advised and aware that violating the terms associated with the privilege results in losing Global Entry status as well as incurring appropriate penalties. She volunteered and was signed-off for being considered lower-risk/more trustworthy than an "average, normal passenger" by CBP.

It's because of the pre-education, background check, interview/vetting process that it's far more likely that a Global Entry passenger who makes erroneous assumptions that result in undeclared items being found will be penalized than an "average, normal passenger" doing the same (although they certainly can and many do get fined too). Global Entry passengers are held to a higher standard of understanding the rules and behavior. Part of the penalty, a $500 fine (half of what it could have been), is a punishment holding her responsible for not understanding or ignoring the Entry rules that as a Global Entry passenger she was supposed to understand and never ignore. Ignorance and/or misunderstanding may work as an excuse for an "average, normal" passenger, but not for her because that's the responsibility that goes along with the benefit of Global Entry's expedited, usually-unchecked entry.

Most countries don't even have a Global Entry-like program which, by designating some low-risk passengers as trusted who can be expedited, is designed to reduce the length-of-wait times for not only them but the "average, normal" passengers as well. I believe that most here decrying this woman's penalty aren't actually aware what Global Entry is, what gaining that privilege entails, and that it comes with pre-education with respect to entry rules. Part of her penalty and what she's upset about is nothing more than her being shifted from the "low-risk/trusted" expedited Global Entry process back to the "average/normal passenger" processing queues.

Most here decrying this woman's penalty as an over-reaction by CBP are not Global Entry passengers, and are relating to her situation as if she were an "average, normal" passenger like themselves. In other words, NOT passengers who will be held to the higher Global Entry standard that she was. Your question here is framed from that viewpoint, but the Global Entry application process and pre-education is for the purpose of ensuring that "average/normal" is not the viewpoint and level of understanding of those who've put themselves forth and are granted Global Entry expedited processing. Global Entrys are expected to have no confusion re the rules and what needs to be declared.

Yet, even after demonstrating that she clearly doesn't, she publicly insists "I understand the rules". Furthermore, she's apparently so adamant in the mistaken belief she understands them better than the CBP Agent who caught her that she wants to go before a Judge in court to fight it. She'll fail in court, of course, but her statement reveals that the Global Entry application process, pre-education, and even penalties didn't have the desired effect because she's STILL assessing her own behavior through the "average, normal" passenger's viewpoint. There is a great disparity between she standard she professes to understand and what the CBP requires her to maintain vs what she actually does.

That disparity shouldn't come as a surprise given her warped sense of reality regarding things pertaining to herself as exhibited by her claim that she was "treated like a criminal". I don't know what kind of pampered world she lives in but actual criminals are physically detained, handcuffed, arrested, charged with a crime, and read their Rights, none of which happened to her. Also, when actual criminals appear in the media it's either a mug shot or while being forced to do the perp walk to the Courthouse, Jury, and Judge where the end result might be them being sent to the Big House. This is quite unlike voluntarily going to the Courthouse in order to moan before a Judge about a perceived, great unfairness of a penalty that amounts to a loss of Global Entry privilege resulting in being treated "only" like an average, normal passenger and a fine equal to a few month's worth of hot yoga class. One thing for sure, It doesn't seem to occur to her that she was treated exactly how someone caught taking undeclared items through Customs is treated. Maybe she believes she can waltz through life and when running afoul of rules or regulations due to her own inattention or ignorance, and she is entitled to being issued only warnings because of her belief it must be someone else's fault? "But, but your Honor, Delta gave me the apple!!".

Her appeal to the public through a sympathetic media (mis)casting her as an average, normal, suburban Denver woman coming home from Paris who was ill-treated with heavy-handedness at the border over a "mere apple" is designed to elicit an "Oh, that could have happened to me" reaction by the average, normal person, something she was NOT considered to be by the CBP when it comes to entering the country. As a consequence, this thread is rife with those sympathetic reactions from non-Global Entry posters with average, normal passenger viewpoints (plus the viewpoints of those who are generally ignorant of the existence and details of agricultural importation rules, who don't care about them, are too lazy to learn them, don't believe invasive species can wreck harvests, don't believe there should be punishments or penalties for anything, are hair-triggered against any authority and believe anyone who respects it is a fascist, and my personal favorite, the ever-predictable default mode of some; "this could only happen in America" as long as what happened is sold as being bad).

What those "average, normal" reactions are masking is that this woman is so intent blaming others to excuse her own failure to adhere to the Global Entry-level of responsibility she sought, agreed-to, and was expected by CBP to maintain, she's publicly making statements that reveal her continued "average, normal" outlook (telling the media "Delta giving me the apple is the most important thing to the story". "Delta should have told me it wasn't allowed or not given out apples at all") oblivious to the fact those statements are completely at odds with what Global Entry is all about and who it's for; people who don't need hand-holding and shepherding by outside entities like Delta, and can be trusted to completely understand and adhere to CBP rules. Someone exhibiting such cluelessness by making them in an effort to evade responsibility can't be trusted to do what's essential to make Global Entry work; self-police. She is walking, media-talking proof that no vetting process is perfect, is exactly the type of person low-grade fines are designed for, and why random-checking of Global Entry passengers is still conducted. Someone with the ability to self-police not only seeks an answer to resolve a disagreement between an assumption they've made that seems to be at odds with a rule they know (which, despite her insistence, she obviously doesn't), but even lacking knowledge they also have the ability to recognize when they are making an assumption and, knowing that's not good enough, seek clarification before they act.

It's good she's been weeded-out of the Global Entry program. If CBP found too many people like her they'd simply do away with it.

Delta and other airlines provide an inflight briefing with respect to what the Entry process and Customs rules are. Do they go up and above, singling-out and emphasizing through a PA announcement the fruit aspect just because enroute they've handed out inflight snacks, including fruit? Doubtful, but why should they? They also handed out meat-like substances as well, and psuedo-salads. The Declaration Form on the aircraft or it's duplicate at the Global Entry kiosk one must read, answer, and sign is self-explanatory. It asks if you are bringing fruit, Yes or No.

That was her hottest water. She earned her fine and loss of Global Entry status by answering "No" to the "I am bringing Fruits.." question when she was, in fact, bringing fruit. Despite the fact that as a Global Entry passenger she shouldn't have been ignorant of the rule against importation or made the erroneous assumption she did, neither would cause or explain her answering "No" on her Declaration Form. Even the occasional fruits and vegetables that are allowed to be brought in because those bringing them have gone through the proper importation process and carry the requisite documentation must be declared by answering "Yes" by that person on their Form. The only time one answers "No", is when one actually don't have any. Simple.

[donotdespisethesnake]

Yes, all citizens and especially non-citizens must "follow orders", it is for the national interest. Papers please...

[PukinDog]

Yes, all citizens and especially non-citizens must "follow orders", it is for the national interest. Papers please...

I fly in and out of a couple dozen countries per year, 80+ overall, and when showing-up as crew or passenger I can't recall one where the attending agents/guards/security force personnel, soldiers etc. don't expect you follow instructions, orders, and abide by the particular and sometimes peculiar rules and regulations each country deems necessary if you hope to gain entry (including my admittance into my own). Until such time we live in a country-less global Utopia as Imagined by Lennon, when crossing borders and showing up at entry points, "Must follow" is a fact of life if one wants to be admitted. Producing the appropriate and valid papers they deem necessary (Passports, Visas, Declarations, etc) is usually part of that equation.

The closest I've come to it being otherwise was driving from the U.S. into Mexico, where the border guard leaning against the gate just waved vehicles through, looking at nothing. Of course, I didn't interpret his seeming disinterest and discretionary use of a wave-through as him being powerless to stop me to give instructions if or ask for paperwork if he had a mind to before allowing me to proceed.

Funny thing about driving into Mexico, Customs, and making assumptions like the Delta Apple-lady. A Mexican border guard waves you, your friends, and your car into Mexico. Your U.S. driver's license is valid for Mexico, but your U.S. insurance isn't. If you've done your research and purchased the car insurance that's required to be purchased from a Mexican insurance company, Mexican Customs will seize your car if you're caught driving outside a certain short distance from the border unless you've paid to obtain a Vehicle Import Permit. Yet, even with proper IDs, valid Driver's Licenses recognized by Mexico, Mexican car insurance, and a proper Vehicle Import Permit, if you let one of your buddies on the trip with a valid Driver's License drive your car without you inside the car and he's stopped, Mexican Customs will seize your vehicle and it's gone.

If that occurred, one could moan all day about how unfair and stupid that is. After all, the driver caught driving your car was allowed into Mexico at the border and also holds a Driver's license that's recognized by Mexico. Furthermore, the car had Mexican insurance papers and a Mexican Vehicle Import Permit so it could be driven anywhere in Mexico. Moreover, the Customs man at the border just waved everyone with their valid papers and licenses including those for the car. All good. So how can seizure by Customs be the penalty for merely allowing a Legal entry, valid-licensed friend use a Mexico-approved car for a short a beer run?

Well, the penalty is what Mexico decided it would be...your car. Of course, one could take their case to a Mexican court to appeal the penalty using a variation of the Delta Apple-lady Defense, telling the Judge the penalty is unfair because although the rules are written down for anyone who wants to bring a car into Mexico for driving around later to read, the Mexican border guard didn't stop them to point out that particular rule and emphasize that when driving in Mexico the owner of the car must be in the car at all times it's being driven or Mexican Customs will seize and keep it.

"Your Honor, I understand the rules but the border dude just waved us through and didn't say anything, which is the most important thing to me, so "common sense" says letting my friend Jake borrow the car to go buy a 12-pack of Pacifico is no big deal. He was totally sober and a real good driver. He has a license. It was just a short errand. The border dude waved us through making me think everything was okay. If he only would have said something, so it's sorta his fault...but now I'm the one being treated like a criminal!"

Ah, those funny Customs rules that can't be divined through "common sense" can seem like a sneaky, unfair trap to those that depend on it and/or timely spoon-fed info from others instead of using the kind of sense it takes to read and seek answers before it all goes pear-shaped..

[david1300]

I can't believe there is anyone defending the woman - but hey, that's just me.

One really good thing is that maybe, just maybe, some ordinary, everyday travelers will pay more attention when completing these entry forms. And maybe they will listen to the announcements prior to landing that advise that all snacks and foodstuffs provided during the flight must be left on the plane.

I always have some food item with me - usually a sealed chocolate bar or similar - and declare it. It reminds me to do my pre-disembarking checklist - do I have any items on me ir in my luggage that I should declare. I find this actually speeds up my exit.

[DaveReidUK]

I can't believe there is anyone defending the woman - but hey, that's just me.

I don't see anyone defending her actions. She contravened the rules and paid the appropriate penalty.

Yes, there has been discussion of various possible explanations as to why she might have done what she did.

Explanations, not excuses.