Going back to the original questions as posted, At this point, let me refer back to OD-400-54-2: Discovery of Contraband During the Screening Process where it says if the TSA screener finds "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. I take that to read, they are NOT to conduct "an investigation" on their own, as if they had power or authority to do that, they are directed by that memo to call in the appropriate real law enforcement agency.

In Bierfeldt's case, the TSA screener kept pursuing the question "why are you carrying that much money?" which is (a) clearly an "investigation" and (b) is, in light of his admission that if Bierfeldt had answered his question, he'd have been allowed to pass all he had to go on. So, before going on to the underlying question by triehle, was there any rational basis to detain Bierfeldt? Given what we know objectively about this (from the recording) the answer is clear: no. Bierfeldt was detained solely as a function of a clash of ego versus someone standing up for his personal rights. It's no more complex than that. Now to the underlying questions:

"Must" they deny him passage through the checkpoint? I'd say NO, I think there is no "must" involved, instead they have no basis for detaining him and, lacking some other actual "prohibited item" he should have been allowed to pass and board his flight unmolested.

Now, I'd also say if you add to your altered fact set that there was something else for them to act on (i.e.: a boarding pass or ticket for a different airline for an onward trip from DCA to someplace like, for example, Cuba or some drug paraphernalia - under the terms of the memo - they should immediately call over the local police or appropriate Federal LE. Without then straying into the debate over the role of the TSA, focusing solely on the memo's instructions, the screener blew it, he acted beyond the scope of his job and the scope of the memo. I'm also then left to wonder, since we know there was one screener and two LEOs involved, where was the screener's actual supervisor? Why wasn't he involved and why didn't he (ok, or she) act on this at the secondary inspection point rather than take this to that next level??

I'd say yes assuming he had something else to go on. However, he objectively did not. The screener found money - it was less than the trigger threshold set forth in "the memo" - the screener pushed this for no other reason than because Bierfeldt questioned his authoratiiiiii. IF we adopt that the screener had something else to go on, then yes, the memo requires him to call in LEO but not file an investigative report which would seem, by extension, for him to hand the guy over to real LE, explain why he (the screener) has suspicions, and then go back to his job of rifling people's luggage. Without a doubt, that is not what happened. He remained involved and "contributed" for the entire 23-plus minute detention.

In effect, yes. In reality, what was instituted was a requirement to kowtow to a screener.

What interests me most in this is and the http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/trave...ying-cash.html thread is that the TSA folks on here are willing to ramble on about what they've done or that they're willing to call in the local police or CBP about someone with a "wad" of cash but none have directly defended the actions of the TSA guy in St Louis. I'm already on record saying I think the first real LEo involved should be hung out to dry for his misconduct but this would have never got to that point if the original screener had recognized he had no justification for escalating this to the point it was.

As an extension of this question, I want to hear just one TSA/TSO type point to a moment on the recording that suggests they had anything, anything at all, to go on here that would lead the reasonable man to call in an appropriate law enforcement agency in the context of this memo.