I don't see how that plan won't work, because there is no limit on the amount of money you can legally carry. So how could one determine a threshold amount above which it would be reasonable to be suspicious?
Your question is based on the TSA's flawed logic in the first place. I completely agree with your sentiment, but I can't answer your question.
__________________
Excuse me stewardess, I speak jive.
Programs: UA-1k, HH Silver, Giving Tootsie Pops to UA employees, & now a retired hockey goalie
Posts: 10,151
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ari
The ACLU generally doesn't settle unless there is a mea culpa and corrective action taken. What the lawsuit seeks:
So, if DHS (a) admits that they violated the constitution and that they exceeded their statutory authority, (b) agrees not to do it again and takes steps to make sure it doesn't happen again and (c) pays the ACLU's legal fees, then the ACLU will settle. Otherwise, not likely.
I will add that one of the lawyers on this case, Alan Gura, argued before the Supreme Court last year and won -- that was Heller.
one problem.....my hair will grow back before the tsa ever "admits that they violated the constitution and that they exceeded their statutory authority"
__________________
just my humble opinion but i used to try and stop hockey pucks so what do i know . Nighthawks fans are everywhere
Wait a sec. Did you just post a thumbs-up on the prospect of children being forced to live in a cardboard box?
I've got no love for TSA or for over-aggressive screeners, but that seems a bit much.
When dealing with a mule, the first thing you have to do is get it's attention. This is usually accomplished by breaking a two-by-four over the back of it's head.
It is long past time that we as a nation stopped mollycoddling the bad actors that hold government power over us like Poe's Pendulum and treat them like the combination army of occupation and unconstitutional nobility (See Article 1, Section 9) they are. This includes considering their families quislings, collaborators, and profiteers.
It's the only lever that remains. They laugh at criminal charges, even when caught red-handed. No prosecutor interested in career advancement wants to go after a cop or other government employee. Civil awards are usually covered by insurance or the taxpayers and don't hurt them personally. The level of frustration with the corrupt and the system that shields them is incredibly close to boiling over -- just look at what's happening in Oklahoma. The only thing that got that trooper's attention were the multiple threats against his family, and quite frankly he had it coming for his actions and so did his family for providing aid and comfort. There was no excuse for what happened, and the government stonewalling and attempts to press charges against the victim only made things worse.
This lawsuit likely represents one of our last chances to put government back on a leash peacefully. If it fails, no one's going to be able to keep the lid on. It's not something I want, but it may be something that has become necessary. Jefferson's Tree of Liberty has been starved of manure for quite some time.
__________________ Department of Homeland Security sounds better in the original German: Heimatsicherheitsministerium
one problem.....my hair will grow back before the tsa ever "admits that they violated the constitution and that they exceeded their statutory authority"
To me, first they're going to have to demonstrate who was who in the audio recording. Who was TSA, who was police.
I think this is why the Plaintiff asserted that the LEOs were acting as deputized Federal agents. My reading (non-legal) is that if this is the case, only TSA was in the room.
__________________
Sometimes I forget that I have a photographic memory.
Am I missing something here? Why are we bandying about the $10,000 figure when that is totally immaterial to this case? There is no limit to the amount of cash one may carry (undeclared) within the United States. The $10,000 threshold (for declaration, no amount is illegal) concerns money crossing an international border.
As carrying this cash undeclared was perfectly legal, there is no probable cause/reasonable suspicion/legalese cop ........ reason for anyone - TSA, police or the airline CEO - to inspect the money to the point of counting it or questioning why the passenger is in possession of it.
I agree with those who think this could deal a significant blow to TSA's extracurricular activities. If they are ordered to do their f-ing job (searching for threats to aircraft) they will have to stop the fishing expeditions for currency, drugs, etc.
It's time to put a legal exclamation point on the boundary between an administrative search and one based on probable cause, consent or a warrant.
No prosecutor interested in career advancement wants to go after a cop or other government employee.
I don't know about your neck of the woods. But where I am, the federal prosecutors salivate over the prospect of nailing dirty cops. Any sort of public corruption case is among their top priorities.
I don't know about your neck of the woods. But where I am, the federal prosecutors salivate over the prospect of nailing dirty cops. Any sort of public corruption case is among their top priorities.
Federal prosecutors. (Usually the civil rights division).
Federal prosecutors. (Usually the civil rights division).
It would only be the Civil Rights Division if the corruption involved specified acts of interference with federally protected rights and activities, such as conspiracies to interfere with or deny a certain individual or group of individuals the exercise of these rights.
It is more likely to be the public integrity section in the Criminal Division.
