The short answer to your first question is: yes, it was wrong for the TSA screener to escalate this. I'm still waiting for just one of the TSA people here to justify it but look at what we know objectively:

1. Everyone would agree there was a "metal box" in his carry on which should, reasonably, be examined because it wouldn't have been something that could be examined by x-ray. No problem, Bierfeldt should have had his carry on hand inspected because there was something that couldn't really be examined properly in the x-ray machine.

2. But, EVERYONE on the recording agrees at one point or another that ALL Bierfeldt had in the metal box was (a) about $4700 in cash, (b) bumper stickers, (c) political rally pamphlets and flyers. NO ONE suggested (i) drug paraphernalia, (ii) onward boarding pass, tickets, etc to an off shore location, or (iii) ANYTHING that would lead the reasonable man to suspect Bierfeldt was about to take the money and do something "illegal" with it (assume for the moment it's a stretch to make the $4700 into the >$10,00 and he was leaving the country). We KNOW that for sure because the last guy involved - the professional LEO who finally got involved - listed what was there on the recording, identified what the money was for and told Bierfeldt he could go. IF they had something else other than the screener's lame complaint "this is suspicious in nature" they would have held on to him. They did not.

3. The TSA policy memo (OD-400-54-2) sets out conditions and actions for screeners who find "contraband" and there was nothing in Bierfeldt's bag that qualifies as "contraband" and there was nothing (see item #2 above), not ONE THING that justified the TSA screener escalating this "investigation" he has no authority to pursue.


Perhaps that was a bit overly dramatic but no more than, as you correctly pointed out, the Kabuki theater known as the checkpoint. However, on point, I think Bierfeldt, me, pretty much anyone who can see beyond the "eye wash" that airport security has devolved to would rather the screener had kept to the parameters of his job and stopped there. Meaning, it SHOULD have gone down like this:

Q: "There's something opaque in your bag, we'll have to look inside your bag for you can go past this point, ok?"
A: "ok"

[screener opens bag, finds metal box, opens box sees money, bumper stickers and flyers.]

Q: "May I see your boarding pass?"
A: "ok" [hands it to him]

[Screener sees it's a domestic flight. Screener knows he hasn't seen anything else in the bag that would qualify as actually suspicious and, at that point, knowing this is a domestic passenger, and knowing the contents and instructions of "the memo," in this context then knows he has no interest in and shouldn't be concerned with any amount of the money he sees.]

Q: "Thank you, have a nice flight."

He doesn't take it out of the box much less take the box out of the bag. He doesn't make a big deal of it by waving it around or calling anyone's attention to the idea he "found" it so there's no reason then move to the "windowless room" and the questions and actions would have been appropriate under current guidelines and sufficiently discreet at the checkpoint if handled that way that Bierfeld would have had no complaint, he would have moved on quickly - as he should have.

The underlying failure and core blame for this going beyond the checkpoint rests with the screener and his actions. We can extend that to a "we're untouchable" attitude with the larger organization and look to a failure of front line supervision, training, and maybe the screening of TSA employees but in this instance, the problem started and ended with the screener.