Programs: AS MVPG, UA 1K, NW Gld, AA Gld, PC Plt/RA, SPG Gld
Posts: 2,766
Excellent ! This is what I donate to the ACLU for. I have been disappointed in the apparent lack of activity vs TSA so far, but maybe this is an indication that they ahve been waiting for really water-tight cases to litigate.
__________________
Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety
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?
No matter how many times it is said and or written noone will convince whoever doesn't get it, of that fact.It just isn't going to happen.........I do see a trend of amounts vs harrassment. Based on what I have read here the lower the amount the higher the harrassment. I never travel with less than 20X the amount listed in this suit and never had an issue. Hmm? Why is that? I have been lucky? I carry myself is some different manner? They see into my brain and know there is NO chance I would give it up? I am certaintly not special enough to get a pass. So what is it? The only possible answer is the amount involved and the what if factor.
__________________ Never Underestimate The Importance Of Innocence To The Innocent Man
Programs: CO Plat ('01-10), & such. Still proudly carry PSA Executive Flyer smile not the fake USAir "grin!"
Posts: 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by IslandBased
I'd venture a quick guess that it became a pi$$ing contest. It just escalated due to attitude, on both sides. I could be mistaken, as well. It is a case that IMHO deserves to be argued in court.
If you're talking about the original detention by TSA of the traveler (Steve Bierfeldt) and then the continued detention by the St Louis Airport Police, no, there's nothing Bierfeldt did wrong. See: this thread on the "Steve Bierfeldt question" and the original thread regarding the original report
But I agree, it needs to be argued in OPEN court so everyone can see how far beyond the mandate the TSA and police went here which is what the ACLU's position is in this case. To show this, I think the ACLU would put on a case like this:
(1) Bierfeldt is traveling domestically St Louis to DC, at the St Louis checkpoint, TSA sees a metal box in a carryon and - reasonably - wants to open it and look inside (they can't see into it in the x-ray tunnel).
(2) When TSA opens the box, they find (1) about $4700 in cash, (2) Ron Paul literature and bumper stickers and related materials but they find nothing that threatens the safety of anyone on the airplane Bierfeldt was going to baord.
*** ACLU will probably argue that at this point that that's as far as it should have gone under the TSA mandate. From the ACLU press release:
Quote:
Ben Wizner, a staff attorney with the ACLU National Security Project. "It is, of course, very important to ensure the safety of flights and keep illegal weapons and explosives off planes. But allowing TSA screeners to conduct general purpose law enforcement searches violates the Constitution while diverting limited resources from TSA's core mission of protecting safety. For the sake of public safety and constitutional values, these unlawful searches should stop."
The ACLU will probably also point out the contents of the directives the TSA screener should have been operating under including as found at:
Quote:
Originally Posted by triehle
Operations Directive OD-400-54-2: Discovery of Contraband During the Screening Process
(snip) When TSA discovers contraband during the screening process that is not a TSA Prohibited Item, the matter should be referred to the local Law Enforcement Officers as appropriate. An Enforcement Investigative Report should not be initiated.
Examples of such contraband include: (snip) Large amounts of cash ($10,000) (snip)
and they will point out that nothing Bierfeldt had should have triggered any further action. We know and the TSA and St Louis Airport Police knew because both referenced the amount on the recording, that they were NOT dealing with $10,000 (or $10,000.01) and we all know (again, referenced on the tape) Bierfeldt was traveling domestically (for those who still want to bring the amount back into play as it relates to international travel).
(3) But, it didn't stop and the TSA screener seeing the money became a wannabe agent of the police and asks "why are you carrying that much money?"
(4) Bierfeldt asks, "am I required to answer that question?"
*** At this point, some will argue that's when it became a "pi$$in context" but that's belied by the recording itself at least as it relates to Bierfeldt and when we look at Rendon v TSA (as I'm certain the ACLU will), we find that the court points out:
Quote:
"(67 Fed. Reg. 8340, 8344) does not prevent good-faith questions from individuals seeking to understand the screening of their persons or their property.”
So, the ACLU will argue, knowing he was carrying a relatively small amount of money (domestically) his question (particularly in the even tone we hear on the recording) is not only reasonable but permitted. Then with that in mind the ACLU will say that the violation of Bierfeldt's civil rights as a function of the overreaching of the TSA occurred when:
(6) TSA then detains Bierfeldt and involve the St Louis airport police who, together, make all kinds of threats about what they're going to do with Bierfeldt who is continually asked why he has that much money to which he continually asks "am I required to answer that question?" His detention continues until a far more professional law enforcement officer comes into the picture, realizes what's going on, asks the question a different way and then says Bierfeldt is free to go.
Now, there have been some who have suggested Bierfeldt could have simply responded "the money is proceeds from a political rally: contributions and bumper sticker sales" and, in theory, be done with it. But while that might have been the "easy" way to get on to his flight, was that the "right thing to do?" Doesn't that suggest he (we) abdicate his (our) rights to the screener who was; undeniably, well beyond his mandate? To his credit, Bierfeldt handled it well (again, listen to the recording). He did NOT engage in attitude or a "pi$$in contest." He didn't call the screener or airport police names. He was coolheaded enough to have been able to record the detention so he had clear proof of their misconduct and behavior.
Moreover, and ultimately this might be the most damning thing against the TSA since the complaint names the TSA not the individual screener, I'm not so sure that had Bierfeldt answered the question it would have placated the screener. If you listen to the recording, even after the second actual law enforcement officer comes in and realizes what the money's for and says Bierfeldt is free to go, the TSA screener says he's not sure he wants to let Bierfeldt onto "his concourse" and that the money is still "suspicious in nature" (his own "wannabe TV police" words).
This feeds straight into the ACLU's position here that the TSA is engaging in "general purpose law enforcement" searches. Yes, this case should be heard in court and it should result in a change in policy limiting what that the TSA can be snooping around for and refocusing them on actually looking for hazards to aviation safety.
__________________
-Rusty
CO OnePass lifetime: 941,710 & '09: 132,014 miles
Last edited by rustyhaight; Jun 20, 09 at 1:40 am.
Reason: typos...
No matter how many times it is said and or written noone will convince whoever doesn't get it, of that fact.It just isn't going to happen.........I do see a trend of amounts vs harrassment. Based on what I have read here the lower the amount the higher the harrassment. I never travel with less than 20X the amount listed in this suit and never had an issue. Hmm? Why is that? I have been lucky? I carry myself is some different manner? They see into my brain and know there is NO chance I would give it up? I am certaintly not special enough to get a pass. So what is it? The only possible answer is the amount involved and the what if factor.
1) You carry +/- $100,000 cash with you when you travel?!?
2) His cash was in a metal box (cashier-type box) which needed to be inspected by hand since the x-ray can't (according to everything we have read) see through it.
Maybe your cash hasn't been discovered because you haven't had a bag check? Has it ever been discovered and have you ever been asked to "account for it" by the TSA?
Programs: WN CP, A-List; CO Plats; NW Golds (ex Plats); Hilton Diamond; Marriott Silver; Club Cholula™ Plat
Posts: 19,260
Quote:
Originally Posted by n4zhg
I'll bet that's what Steve is hoping for. The instant DHS files a response that states the TSOs and airport "police" were acting beyond training and policy, there will be a separate lawsuit against them in pro per.
Why would they bother?
Lawsuits such as these have two purposes -- change policy and compensate victims financially for harm that was done.
The TSO's can do neither. Pursuing them individually would be pouring money down a rathole. Most of them probably have fewer assets than their states' bankruptcy exemptions.
The airport police don't make policy but should be well insured and able to contribute to any financial settlement. The fact that they're not being pursued is a pretty clear indication that this is all about policy, not money:
Quote:
Originally Posted by rustyhaight
This feeds straight into the ACLU's position here that the TSA is engaging in "general purpose law enforcement" searches. Yes, this case should be heard in court and it should result in a change in policy limiting what that the TSA can be snooping around for and refocusing them on actually looking for hazards to aviation safety.
Thanks for taking the time to connect the dots, rh.
Lawsuits such as these have two purposes -- change policy and compensate victims financially for harm that was done.
The TSO's can do neither. Pursuing them individually would be pouring money down a rathole. Most of them probably have fewer assets than their states' bankruptcy exemptions.
The airport police don't make policy but should be well insured and able to contribute to any financial settlement. The fact that they're not being pursued is a pretty clear indication that this is all about policy, not money:
Thanks for taking the time to connect the dots, rh.
Bolding mine. The effect it might have on TSOs could be positive though. Might make them think 'do I really want to do what that guy in St Louis did?'
If this forces a policy change and better training for TSO's I'm all for it. The attitude of 'we answer to no one' might just go away and they become more human than authoritarian. Once the courts slap them down they might consider their original mission of keeping weapons, incendiary devices, and explosives off of the aircraft as their primary mission.
The question you seem to pose is, why, after it was discovered that it was less than $10,000.01 (as in this case) the TSA, with the help of the police, continued the search/seizure. I have no answer for that.
The above is just my take on the exchange. Feel free to correct me if I am wrong.
--Ari
If you are flying domestically why does the amount matter? Can't you travel with $200,000 if you wanted to?
If you are flying domestically why does the amount matter? Can't you travel with $200,000 if you wanted to?
You "should" be able to travel domestically with any amount of money you like, however an atmosphere is present in government that equates a person wealth to wrong doing, excepting elected officials of course.
Why TSA got their fingers in this is the big mystery but we have all seen the TSA document declaring $10,000 contraband. Apparently the real amount is something much smaller.
Do a little reading up on the Bank Secrecy Act. Also something called Multistate Financial Institution Data Match. Then look at your government at work via Financial Crimes Network(FinCen) and grasp that all of these can obtain personal data from your financial institutions records without search warrants. In fact in most cases you won't even know that your information has been acquired.
The TSA and their interest in a persons wealth is troubling but only the tip of a much larger iceberg.
You "should" be able to travel domestically with any amount of money you like, however an atmosphere is present in government that equates a person wealth to wrong doing, excepting elected officials of course.
Why TSA got their fingers in this is the big mystery but we have all seen the TSA document declaring $10,000 contraband. Apparently the real amount is something much smaller.
Do a little reading up on the Bank Secrecy Act. Also something called Multistate Financial Institution Data Match. Then look at your government at work via Financial Crimes Network(FinCen) and grasp that all of these can obtain personal data from your financial institutions records without search warrants. In fact in most cases you won't even know that your information has been acquired.
The TSA and their interest in a persons wealth is troubling but only the tip of a much larger iceberg.
Not that anyone is interested in any reasonable explanation, but it is written procedure. Problem is that it's only a sentence or two, which unfortunately leaves a lot of room for interpretation. No one in TSA is making anything up or pursuing personal interests; they are trying to follow a written procedure.
Best solution for all parties concerned is a court order that either clarifies or eliminates that written portion. We'll see what happens.
If you are flying domestically why does the amount matter? Can't you travel with $200,000 if you wanted to?
It does not matter. You should be able to travel with $2,000,000 cash without harassment. I was just trying to make sense of the exchange. Bart seems to 'answer' the question above-- but cannot actually answer it because those two sentenses are SSI. So, it seems that they were following some established procedure-- exactly what that procedure is, we don't know. All we have is the memo that was released which calls $10,000+ contraband.
Best in Class 
