The only hurdle I see for this one is that I think that the TSA could turn around and say "the detention was by the airport police, not us." I hope that the ACLU foresees that defense and handles it well.
The TSA SOP and the LEO SOP will show that they were not following orders. Once that is established the individuals can be sued for infringing on the man's rights.
Remember the case of the guy and the t-shirt?
Wrongamundo, big time. It is an established procedure. The question is whether or not there is a valid nexus between this procedure and airport screening. I would not mind it if this procedure were removed from the books.
But make no mistake, this isn't the Earth-shattering court case that some are making it out to be. It will result in a minor adjustment to current screening procedures. That's it.
We can hope that the LEO and TSA screener involved are found personally liable for a huge award. There's nothing like seeing a collegue lose his hours, car and retirement fund to focus your attention on following the law, rather than making it up on the spot. It may also help the front-line screeners question some of the nonsense that comes down from HQ.
The only better outcome would be a criminal prosecution for civil rights infringement under color of law.
Unfortunately it appears that the only person being sued is Jackboot Janet II and only in her official capacity for declaratory and injunctive relief. Which means the drones who actually pulled this stunt won't feel any pain.
I have to ask Steve why they did it this way. Has to be some technicality.
__________________ Department of Homeland Security sounds better in the original German: Heimatsicherheitsministerium
Had the gentleman checked the box of cash rather than taken it through security screening, this whole thing could have been avoided. However, I would strongly recommend that he take out insurance on his checked belongings, in the unlikely event it is misplaced in transit.
I certainly wish I had recorded my airport arrest, as it would have exposed it for the sham that it was. As stated in earlier posts, my efforts to obtain a copy of the video continues to be unsuccessful due, as I have been advised due to it's "national security" content. My request under the Freedom of Information Act continue to go unresponded to.
Had the gentleman checked the box of cash rather than taken it through security screening, this whole thing could have been avoided. However, I would strongly recommend that he take out insurance on his checked belongings, in the unlikely event it is misplaced in transit.
Next time please flag your sarcasm.
__________________ Department of Homeland Security sounds better in the original German: Heimatsicherheitsministerium
The only hurdle I see for this one is that I think that the TSA could turn around and say "the detention was by the airport police, not us." I hope that the ACLU foresees that defense and handles it well.
Perhaps the TSA could have used that excuse...until the police left and the screener said that the box of money was suspicious and he needed to talk to a manager before letting it through the checkpoint. Even after the police had figured out where the money was from.
Overall, it's a good example of why so many people argued with me against civil forfeiture laws in the other thread.
Wrongamundo, big time. It is an established procedure. The question is whether or not there is a valid nexus between this procedure and airport screening. I would not mind it if this procedure were removed from the books.
But make no mistake, this isn't the Earth-shattering court case that some are making it out to be. It will result in a minor adjustment to current screening procedures. That's it.
The TSO procedure calls for the detention of a person for having $4,700 on their person?
The TSO procedure calls for the detention of a person for having $4,700 on their person?
Post it!
Nice try.
I agree that this is one procedure we could do without. I'm looking forward to the court decision. No one made up the procedure on their own. What's so hard about that, sport?
Programs: AA EXP/2MM, QF WP, DL PM, US Conscientious Objector, TED Boycotter, SPG PLT, TSA Disparager Diamond
Posts: 37,446
Quote:
Originally Posted by sailman
Had the gentleman checked the box of cash rather than taken it through security screening, this whole thing could have been avoided. However, I would strongly recommend that he take out insurance on his checked belongings, in the unlikely event it is misplaced in transit.
I certainly wish I had recorded my airport arrest, as it would have exposed it for the sham that it was. As stated in earlier posts, my efforts to obtain a copy of the video continues to be unsuccessful due, as I have been advised due to it's "national security" content. My request under the Freedom of Information Act continue to go unresponded to.
Have you contacted your elected representatives and the ACLU?
__________________
You cannot uphold American ideology with un-American actions. It's time for change.
Have you contacted your elected representatives and the ACLU?
Yes. The ACLU was not interested as I suspect, in their judgement, it didn't have any constitutional relavance. Putting aside the fact that "even paranoid people have enemies", I suspect there might be some progress on my obtaining the tape when a statute of limitations runs out, if such aapplies in this instance.
I agree that this is one procedure we could do without. I'm looking forward to the court decision. No one made up the procedure on their own. What's so hard about that, sport?
Bart, you are saying that TSA has a procedure for investigating people who have lessor sums of cash than $10,000, right?
I have trouble with that if it is a policy as I do for TSA investigating anything that is not a threat to an aircraft.
