Two months ago a Colorado based passenger arrived at a U.S. point of entry from Paris on Delta Air Lines and the airline handed out fruits during the flight which the lady then decided to take off the plane, a decision that cost her $500 as well as her Global Entry membership.
The case caused headlines throughout the media and caught the attention of a Congressman from Colorado who intervened on the woman’s behalf with Customs and Border Protection (CBP), resulting in them reversing their decision.
When this case first became public in April I wrote about it (see here) as it’s quite interesting to see how Global Entry members who honestly should know better try and flout the rules at times.
Customs and Border Protection has repeatedly stated that Global Entry and Nexus members are held to much higher standards than the regular traveler and that a violation of any kind can lead to having the membership terminated.
Now there are new developments as SF Gate reported yesterday (access here).
Two months ago, a Delta passenger generated national headlines when a U.S. Customs and Border Protection officer fined her $500 and revoked her Global Entry membership all because of an apple.
But thanks to a Colorado Congressman, the fine has been revoked and her Global Entry status restored. …
Fortunately for Tadlock, her TV interview was seen by Rep. Ed Perlmutter (D-CO), who took umbrage at Customs’ draconian enforcement of the fruit law. In Washington, he huddled with officials from Customs and the Department of Agriculture to argue Tadlock’s case, suggesting the agencies need to learn to use discretion instead of strictly going by the book in every situation.
Customs agreed to drop the $500 fine and to restore Tadlock’s trusted traveler status. It seems that common sense prevailed over a clearly unreasonable punishment.
The excuses she brought up don’t have any merit in my opinion. She is a Global Entry participant and obviously travels internationally on a frequent basis. Global Entry applicants receive an introduction during their interview and are informed in all materials related to the program that it’s a system based on ‘trust’ hence the description Trusted Traveler Program. Members have to self police themselves and act in a fashion according to regulations and rules of the program.
While certainly a good outcome for the person involved it shines the focus on a very important issue: Customs agents have a lot of discretion when it comes to interpret if and how an individual has violated the rules.
A while back I wrote about a document obtained through the Freedom of Information Act where DHS/CBP made a list of revoked Global Entry memberships available (see here) and it’s a good insight to what people think they can get away with.
Conclusion
As far as this particular case is concerned I’m still under the impression there was some attitude on the part of the passenger involved. I might be wrong but the all the statements in related articles and videos drive me to that conclusion. There is no remorse and lots of shifting the blame to Delta and the customs agent.
Right now it’s mid-term election season in the U.S. and politicians try to point with the public so this action seems more like a political stunt. CBP shouldn’t have relented in this matter and insisted that the traveler broke the rules. In any case I bet that they placed her on a special watch list or marked her profile so even the slightest violation will now see her kicked off. And at some point she has to renew the membership.
I disagree – this is an accident on one piece of fruit that was given in flight and she should have been let off with a warning rather than a full revokation of status. Someone getting off a long flight with a single piece of fruit from the airline should not face the full wrath of the US government, especially as I’d surmise that if she properly discarded the fruit onboard, it would still end up in a landfill on US soil.
I do think Delta, while not culpable/liable, should at least include a note on their sticker to not remove the fruit from the aircraft for this very reason.
CBP most likely relented because a Congressman intervened for a constituent. OK, it may have seemed harsh (and perhaps it was), but CBP followed the law.
Of course, one can appeal and she did; including asking her Congressman to get involved.
I just hope, now that she is reinstated, that she follows the rules and regulations and if she is not sure about something, ask! Sometimes, something like this happening wakes a person up. Hopefully, it did her.
Until this year there was a discrepancy between the wording of the food declaration between is on the GE kiosk screen (basically any edible item) vs what appeared on the printed declaration that specified seeds, milk products, meat and a few other more specifically ag safety related items. This did lead to some wiggle room.
Also at almost every GE point of entry there is an agent who does a review of the print out and who has discretion as to who gets sent to secondary inspection. Before this if I indicated I had food (I always pack a few granola bars) there was no question that I’d be directed to secondary because my form had a big circle and x on it. Now I can tell the agent what I have and get cleared straight through.
But I do agree she should have know about the zero tolerance on two counts: 1. bringing fruit that is definitely prohibited and 2. lying on her declaration (though given the number of lies the president makes every time he opens his mouth…$
On Intl flights any food and drink that is served or I bring on board I always consume it.
So anyone else with a piece of fruit should be allowed this same exemption? Accept responsibility and pay the fine.