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.
The policy is pretty straightforward, to me. However, it seems to be a stumbling block for others.
I think it is both, we want to change policy AND punish the band of morons.
Have you ever heard of qualified immunity? If they were following an established procedure (and Bart says they were-- and I believe him), I challenge you to find a way hold them personally liable. I understand that this sounds like they were "just following orders," but that's what qualified immunity is all about.
Alan Gura is a very serious lawyer and I'm sure he looked at every angle before arriving at the conclusion to sue only one party.
I think it is both, we want to change policy AND punish the band of morons.
One of the reasons I can't take your posts seriously is because of comments like this. So you think there's wisdom behind going after one of, if not THE, lowest paid employees on the government pay scale for some sort of emotional/personal satisfaction. Good thing the limit to your thinking is just a keystroke.
A change in policy is a good thing. While it can be argued that the supervisor may have strayed away from written policy; it can also be argued that the policy isn't very clear. Why get involved in that mess at all? Why not just change the goddamned policy?
As you can tell, I've never agreed with it. Been the stuckee several times having to enforce it. Why is it so hard for you to accept that I and probably the majority of STSOs, LTSOs and TSOs would be happy to see this one provision go away? Afraid that we might agree on something? How narrow-minded is that!
Agree. Why bother with cash when you can look for weapons and explosives? Simple logic (and we know this is not a strong point at the TSA powers that be).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bart
One of the reasons I can't take your posts seriously is because of comments like this. So you think there's wisdom behind going after one of, if not THE, lowest paid employees on the government pay scale for some sort of emotional/personal satisfaction. Good thing the limit to your thinking is just a keystroke.
A change in policy is a good thing. While it can be argued that the supervisor may have strayed away from written policy; it can also be argued that the policy isn't very clear. Why get involved in that mess at all? Why not just change the goddamned policy?
Agree. Petty is petty. There is real 'professional' misconduct to go after, such as serial testa-liars, brutality, downright discrimination, etc-- this is about a change in policy plain and simple. After a change in policy is when you go after individuals who stray from that policy for their own reasons. Geez!
I'll say it one more time-- Gura is a smart guy and won Heller last year-- he knows what he is doing-- and so does the ACLU in this regard. So simple yet so complicated for some . . .
Have you ever heard of qualified immunity? If they were following an established procedure (and Bart says they were-- and I believe him), I challenge you to find a way hold them personally liable. I understand that this sounds like they were "just following orders," but that's what qualified immunity is all about.
Alan Gura is a very serious lawyer and I'm sure he looked at every angle before arriving at the conclusion to sue only one party.
According to Blogger Bob and the directive that was publicly released $10k is the bar for a referral to a LEO.
Bart on the other hand is hinting that the $10k bar has been changed to something lower. Bart won't willingly put SSI on this forum so we only have his hint to go by.
If I remember correctly this disclosure was made AFTER the harassment of the Ron Paul guy. If that is the case I will have to assume the directive released by Blogger Bob was the most current directive at the time.
The TSA's defense on this matter will be either they have the authority to do sweeping LE searches (not likely) or the TSO was acting way outside his training and outside the SOP.
The TSA will bring up the fact that the directive clearly states $10k as being the bar for suspicion. The TSA will paint this TSO, that most likely was following "orders", as a rouge TSO acting on his own.
The TSA will try to have the suit dropped claiming that because the TSO was acting on his own and not within the SOP or training the TSA has no fault and is the wrong party to sue.
Qualified immunity does not cover someone in the Government when they act in bad faith, outside the stated policy, to violate their victim's civil rights.
Remember the T-shirt case. The TSO in that case was acting outside his training and outside the SOP even though part of the TSO's job is to keep people from causing alarm in fellow passengers.
The TSA threw that poor slob under the bus, don't you think they will throw this slob under the bus?
The policy is pretty straightforward, to me. However, it seems to be a stumbling block for others.
I recommend eliminating the entire passage.
Just a yes or no question, is there anywhere in the SOP, directives, or any other official TSA documentation that lowers the suspicion bar for cash below $10k?
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.
Bart you dodged the questions before, is the procedure for greater than $10,000 or something less?
It seems it must be something less since $4,700 got as much attention from TSA it did.
Ah, but you do selectively enforce the procedure based on your personal beliefs as to what constitutes suspicious activity.
If the man in STL has only been carrying, say, $2,500 in cash, would he have been stopped? If not, why not? If so, why is $2,500 suspicious but $500 isn't?
There is a line that each TSA personally feels crosses the line from legitimate activity to suspicious activity.
That feeling is generated on their own.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boggie Dog
The $10,000 policy is wrong even though this incident did not meet that policies guidelines.
The TSO's at the airport were wrong on how they reacted to the matter.
The LEO's were wrong in how they responded to the matter.
If I am not mistaken, this policy follows what the banks are required to report inb a one time transaction based on tax laws via the IRS. I could be wrong though.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boggie Dog
Bart is free to come back and clarify what he said or to answer my question; is there a procedure that calls for increased scrutiny if a person has less than $10,000.
In my dealings with money found, the one thing I look for is any type of concealment of it. But then again, someone hiding 1500 in vacation money in a vcr is nothing to really get bent out of shape about being alot of TSOs are thieves.
At checkpoint though, if someone is found to be hiding 4700 in their ... crack, then something seems to be wrong, and maybe additional screening is merited.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PoliceStateSurvivor
I could not agree more. Suit for money could easily be settled with no admission of wrondoing.
This action has a real chance to bring about some real changes.
Are you a person who looks at the glass to be half full? Nothing will come of this, and everyone knows it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KTW
. I never travel with less than 20X the amount listed in this suit and never had an issue.
Do you declare your money when you travel?
Quote:
Originally Posted by LV702
If you are flying domestically why does the amount matter? Can't you travel with $200,000 if you wanted to?
You cab travel with any nomination you wish as long as you declare it with the proper channels.
__________________________________________________ _______________
As for my personal feelings about this issue....
I would hope that more than disciplinary actions and sanctions are taken against this officer and leo for their actions. This is yet another black eye on all of the good that the real officers try to do on a daily basis.
Maybe extreme actions like loss of a job will make others take notice on how not to handle the pax. We are not leos. That is why we work in conjunction with them. This was well below the mandated amount for a leo to become involved. Aslso, the soup and manager if they were involved(and I do not doubt they were) should be held accountable.
Officers like this make my our that much tougher, and have to deal with looks and uncomfortable situations that should be a quick, 3-4 minute interaction with the pax and the tso.
If I am not mistaken, this policy follows what the banks are required to report inb a one time transaction based on tax laws via the IRS. I could be wrong though.
What do bank laws have to to with the TSA's mission to "secure" commercial aviation?
Quote:
Originally Posted by TsoJohnDoe
At checkpoint though, if someone is found to be hiding 4700 in their ... crack, then something seems to be wrong, and maybe additional screening is merited.
Why? What is the threat to aviation?
Quote:
Originally Posted by TsoJohnDoe
You cab travel with any nomination you wish as long as you declare it with the proper channels.
How much money do you need to have in order to need to declare it? And who do you declare it to?
__________________
Excuse me stewardess, I speak jive.
Programs: CO Plat ('01-10), & such. Still proudly carry PSA Executive Flyer smile not the fake USAir "grin!"
Posts: 135
I am interested in your reasonable explanation, Bart
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bart
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.
Bart:
I gotta' disagree with you. Unless you're referring to some other directive and then you can say "well, there is this other document covered by SSI that really makes this document meaningless because it was only generated for public disclosure but we really go by some other written policy..." the written directive apparently in play here is "OD-400-54-2: Discovery of Contraband During the Screening Process" which specifically reads:
Quote:
"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:
Illegal drugs
Drug paraphernalia
Large amounts of cash ($10,000) "
The most basic reading is that when a screener finds contraband they should do nothing more other than turn the individual and "contraband" over to LE. Here, the screener not only actively remained involved in but participated in the detention and, even after the real LE figured out what it was for at the end and cut Bierfeldt loose, he argued the $4700 was (and these are his words): "suspicious in nature." Where is that directive (a) telling him to look for something suspicious and (b) what part of his training would qualify him to make that call given the fact set present and the decision and judgement of the LE present? Is his assertion at the end not an effort to override the decision of actual LE particular when he says HE's not ready to let Beirfeldt into "his concourse."
The directive gives example of "contraband" which specifies an example, which directly points to a dollar amount: $10,000. Not $4,700. Now, unless there's some other document you have in mind, some other directive which would have - at the time - superceded this one, even by the worst bit ciphering I can imagine, $4,700 does not rise to the level of $10,000 and particularly in context: (a) the Ron Paul materials, (b) the "bake sale" cash box it was in, (c) the utter lack of drugs or paraphernalia or actual contraband, (d) the fact that the guy was traveling domestically - that passage simply does not rise to give the reasonable man cause to consider the money "contraband" or "suspicious in nature."
Given the facts here, you cannot reasonably paint this as the screener being confused by the wording of that directive. With the fact set present, you cannot seriously suggest the sentence or two there would be confusing or vague; that simply defies logic.
What the screener did here plays right into the ACLU argument:
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."
I say there is no way you can listen to that screener and seriously defend his assertion that Bierfeldt having $4,700 and political materials and no actual material which was a threat to aviation safety or could in any reasonable, rational way be considered real "contraband."
So you're left with two choices:
(1) You say "No one in TSA is making anything up or pursuing personal interests" in which case then we must conclude that it actually is TSA policy to assert the TSA into conducting "general purpose law enforcement searches ... while diverting limited resources from TSA's core mission of protecting safety..." which plays directly into the ACLU argument OR....
(2) This is a rogue screener who is in fact making stuff up and pursuing personal interests. He's playing at being a wannabe LEO and that means the TSA should turn around and hang him out to dry (along with the St Louis Airport Police) although it would seem clear the way the ACLU framed this, they restricted this option and focused on the culture the TSA fosters and it's policies extending beyond the actual mandate.
But I AM interested in a reasonable explanation, tell me, what possible threat did Bierfeldt pose to aviation safety and how - in the context of this event - did any part off the directive justify his detention?
__________________
-Rusty
CO OnePass lifetime: 957,923 & '09: 148,227 miles
Again, I don't want to put words into Bart's mouth, but his posts suggest to me that the "one or two sentences" are not part of the "contraband" directive to which we have access.
Bart is not going to compromise his job by giving details about these sentences. If he likes, and I would appreciate this, he can confirm that those sentences are, in fact, not part of the "contraband" memo of which which we have a copy.
Furthermore, Francine's statement makes no reference to any dollar amount and simply says "a large sum of cash" and "a large sum of money." That should give everyone a hint as to what those two sentences might say . . .
What do bank laws have to to with the TSA's mission to "secure" commercial aviation?
Why? What is the threat to aviation?
How much money do you need to have in order to need to declare it? And who do you declare it to?
Maybe they couldn't decide how much was too much when the rule was written and they decided to use a basic rule the banks follow. I am not sure, so shoot Janet and email and ask her.
There is not threat to aviation, the matter should just be fowarded to the leo and they should take it from there. The tso should be finished with the instance, with exception of maybe some sort of report being written if/when needed.
You declare it at customs at the airport. You can file form FinCEN 105 before hand or at customs. Failure to declare it can mean forfeiture. Again, I am not an expert to the law, but my first thought is, if a person is carrying large amounts of cash, the fed will want to be sure that money is taxed.
Are you a person who looks at the glass to be half full? Nothing will come of this, and everyone knows it.
Wow. Just wow. You clearly don't understand the concept of injunctive relief.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TsoJohnDoe
Do you declare your money when you travel?
Why would he unless he is leaving the country?
Quote:
Originally Posted by TsoJohnDoe
You cab travel with any nomination you wish as long as you declare it with the proper channels.
(sic)
That applies to international travel only.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TsoJohnDoe
As for my personal feelings about this issue....
I would hope that more than disciplinary actions and sanctions are taken against this officer and leo for their actions. This is yet another black eye on all of the good that the real officers try to do on a daily basis.
Maybe extreme actions like loss of a job will make others take notice on how not to handle the pax. We are not leos. That is why we work in conjunction with them. This was well below the mandated amount for a leo to become involved. Aslso, the soup and manager if they were involved(and I do not doubt they were) should be held accountable.
Officers like this make my our that much tougher, and have to deal with looks and uncomfortable situations that should be a quick, 3-4 minute interaction with the pax and the tso.
Maybe they couldn't decide how much was too much when the rule was written and they decided to use a basic rule the banks follow. I am not sure, so shoot Janet and email and ask her.
There is not threat to aviation, the matter should just be fowarded to the leo and they should take it from there. The tso should be finished with the instance, with exception of maybe some sort of report being written if/when needed.
You declare it at customs at the airport. You can file form FinCEN 105 before hand or at customs. Failure to declare it can mean forfeiture. Again, I am not an expert to the law, but my first thought is, if a person is carrying large amounts of cash, the fed will want to be sure that money is taxed.
With respect, you're kind of dancing around the questions posed. I thought I asked fairly specific questions, let me rephrase:
- How much money on one's person requires that money to be declared?
- Now that we've established money is not a threat to aviation security, how much triggers a "referral" to the LEO, and why?
__________________
Excuse me stewardess, I speak jive.
Programs: CO Plat ('01-10), & such. Still proudly carry PSA Executive Flyer smile not the fake USAir "grin!"
Posts: 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ari
Again, I don't want to put words into Bart's mouth, but his posts suggest to me that the "one or two sentences" are not part of the "contraband" directive to which we have access.
Bart is not going to compromise his job by giving details about these sentences. If he likes, and I would appreciate this, he can confirm that those sentences are, in fact, not part of the "contraband" memo of which which we have a copy.
Furthermore, Francine's statement makes no reference to any dollar amount and simply says "a large sum of cash" and "a large sum of money." That should give everyone a hint as to what those two sentences might say . . .
Fair enough, although I'm not asking for details of another policy and I don't take it he's referring to another policy but rather the couple lines here but then Bart: yes or no, was the screener in STL guided in whole or in part by "OD-400-54-2: Discovery of Contraband During the Screening Process" as detailed above? I'm not asking, is there some other double secret policy, I'm asking was the screener trained on and guided by the policy as detailed above?
If yes, in the context of this event which is made pretty clear in the recording:
(1) Where is that directive (a) telling him to look for something "suspicious" which isn't an actual threat to transportation safety and (b) what part of his training would qualify him to make that call given the fact set present and the decision and judgement of the LE present that Bierfeldt was not violating any law(s) and cut him (Bierfeldt) loose?
(2) What possible threat did Bierfeldt pose to aviation safety with $4700 in cash and how - in the context of this event - did any part off the directive justify his detention?
(3) Given your training and experience and qualifications as a trainer, not specifying a particular policy or directive, if you were at a checkpoint and found this situation please explain (a) whether or not $4700 is "a lot of money" and (b) in the context of the details found in the recording and related above, what was the justification (without citing any memos or directives apart from that detailed above) for detaining Bierfeldt?
__________________
-Rusty
CO OnePass lifetime: 957,923 & '09: 148,227 miles
Last edited by rustyhaight; Jun 20, 09 at 3:49 pm.
Reason: typo...oops
