Delta Passenger Fined $500 for apple
She attempted to bring it through, undeclared, knowing it was in her bag
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
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.
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.
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Mars
Posts: 72
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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.
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.
Last edited by PukinDog; 26th Apr 2018 at 14:59.
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
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
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".
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.
At least I think that's how the argument goes ...
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 ...
At least I think that's how the argument goes ...
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.
Last edited by PukinDog; 26th Apr 2018 at 16:32.
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.
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.
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".
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)
Last edited by DaveReidUK; 26th Apr 2018 at 16:49.
Crystal Tadlock was traveling on the first leg of her flight home from Paris when she received an apple wrapped in plastic with a Delta Air Lines logo displayed on the packaging as part of an in-flight meal, KDVR reports. Tadlock told the local Denver news outlet that she wasn’t hungry, so she stashed the apple in her bag and planned to eat it on her second flight back to Denver.
Tadlock plans to fight the ticket in court, and she’s upset because she could possibly lose her Global Entry Status. “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 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.”
Tadlock plans to fight the ticket in court, and she’s upset because she could possibly lose her Global Entry Status. “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 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.”
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.
Last edited by PukinDog; 26th Apr 2018 at 18:48.
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Mars
Posts: 72
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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.
Tadlock told the local Denver news outlet that she wasn’t hungry, so she stashed the apple in her bag and planned to eat it on her second flight back to Denver.
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?
Last edited by PukinDog; 26th Apr 2018 at 20:50.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Last edited by PukinDog; 26th Apr 2018 at 22:22.
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.
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.
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 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.
Last edited by PukinDog; 26th Apr 2018 at 23:11.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: E.Wash State
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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
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
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)
Last edited by Bend alot; 27th Apr 2018 at 01:32.