While I am not excusing what the TSO and the airport police did, I feel that I need to point out the obvious -- that if the C4L activist had simply answered the screener's question about the cash, no escalation would have ocurred.

Again, it was the refusal by Bierfeldt to answer a question that caused the screener to think in his mind that the money was related to some type of illegal activity, because if it was not, then why would the traveler not answer the question? Thus, given that he had suspicions that the money was related to an illegal activity, calling in the airport police was a logical response.

Now, it was the right of Bierfieldt to refuse the answer the questions. The question that needs answering is: is refusal to answer questions posed by TSOs in the absence of something obvioiusly illegal being found, like a gun or drugs, sufficient grounds for the TSOs to escalate the issue?

I can also understand why the TSA might be reluctant to provide detailed specifics on what TSOs are and are not allowed to ask and do and what they are not, i.e., the rules of engagement. Providing this information would better enable criminals and terrorists to game the system.

Now, again, I want to state that clearly Bierfeldt had the absolute right to act in the way he did. The problem with taking the Fifth, however, is that people naturally assume that people have a reason why they are taking the Fifth, i.e., that they are guilty of something. Juries are instructed to disregard this at trials during their deliberations, but are TSOs required to also disregard this? I don't know.

Perhaps since boarding an aircraft is something that is done voluntarily, people should expect to have a reduced right to privacy during the process of so doing. While freedom of movement is, I am sure, something that could be logically assumed from the Freedom of Assembly clause in the First Amendment, as well as being an obvious basic human right, might a person who is in the process of preparing to board an aircraft be, by so doing, also voluntairly waiving a portion of those rights?

We have gotten to a pretty bad place in our country when a poster could actually say, as amanuensis just did, that "people naturally assume that people have a reason why they are taking the Fifth, i.e., that they are guilty of something."

These are not Jay Leno's "jaywalkers", giving ridiculous answers to simple questions Jay asks. These people are security officers who presumably are required to operate within some set of rules. Denial of the right to travel freely, based upon some TA employees' personal ideas or views, is not simply a civil liberties issue - it indicates the lack of supervision, oversight and training that many of this forum complain about, while providing the public with the illusion of security.

"Those who are willing to sacrifice Liberty for Security, deserve
neither Liberty nor Security." ---Ben Franklin

---Steve

I beg to differ with this characterization. The escalation occurred not when Mr. Bierfeldt asked if he was required to answer the question. The escalations was when the screener asked the question in the first place. From all accounts, Mr. Bierfeldt was going through the screening process in a completely straightforward, proper manner. No accounts of the incident have him behaving in anything other than a completely law-abiding, cooperative manner, until the TSA screener started to question him about his belongings. Mr. Biefeldt did not rant and rave, he did not "artfully conceal" anything, he did not have a prohibited item, he did not have improper identification, he did absolutely nothing that a reasonable person could construe as a wrong act. The TSA screener initiated the escalation of this incident, not Mr Bierfeldt. He merely reacted, with remarkable grace and politeness, to the escalation.



This attitude is disturbing to me. It is true that boarding an aircraft is done voluntarily. However; I don't understand how that leads to a reduced right of privacy. Each of us engage in many voluntary activities each day - walking to the corner store, going to the library, attending a ball game, visiting the library, mowing the lawn. I certainly don't expect to surrender my privacy or constitutional rights because I engage in those activities; I can't understand why I should surrender them when I board an aircraft.


I am not trying to pick a fight with amanuensis, but I cannot see where Mr. Bierfeldt was in any way in the wrong. This was 100% a TSA screw up.

The screener should never have even asked the question. That is the whole point here. Mr Bierfeldt was under no obligation to answer a question regarding a non-security threat to a person that had no business asking it.

Wow. I mean really WOW!

This is exactly why the TSA has gotten so bold. Because way too many people are unaware what "unalienable right" means. Unalienable rights, as used in the U.S. "Declaration of Independence" means rights that cannot be taken away, given away, or sold. LIBERTY is one of those rights.

Remember, "All it takes for tyranny to succeed is for good men to do nothing". Anyone who meekly goes along with "simply answer the question" is allowing tyranny to succeed. We have an "unalienable right" in the U.S. to LIBERTY. That means the TSA can't take it away from us. No one should have to answer the questions posed them by these agents.

I suppose I'm lucky. I've been through the process many times since the TSA started taking control and have only two "special" screenings, both times on one way flights, and have always been treated courteously. I've also left things in my carry-on I shouldn't have (my 3-1-1 stuff) and have never been hassled by TSA, only by other travelers who were inconvenienced by my forgetfulness.

But if I am ever treated like Mr. Bierfeldt was, I would react in exactly the same manner. I would refuse to answer questions that are NONE OF THEIR BUSINESS and immediately ask to have the situation escalated to the local LEO. The threats of the TSA take the guy "downtown" were meant to scare him. The fact that he was willing, and anxious to do that threw them off guard. Good for him. I hope the publicity will force someone at TSA to make sure that clowns like these are fired to discourage other clowns from trying the same thing.

amanuensis, the meek may inherit the earth. But that will be on Judgement Day. Until then the meek will be abused by some of those with authority, real or imagined, unless someone stands up and calls them to account. Fortunately we had someone like that in the person of Steve Bierfeldt.

I want to be clear here -- I agree that Bierfeldt did absolutely nothing wrong. IT WAS NOT WRONG FOR HIM TO REFUSE TO ANSWER THE QUESTIONS. My questioning (and I am of mixed feelings, so I am somewhat playing the devil's advocate) is whether it was wrong for the TSA employee to then escalate the situation based on the refusal to answer.

TSA screening is perhaps not going to stop terrorists from again sucessfully hijacking a plane. But it gives the traveling public the perception that the feds are making it safe to fly. Airlines lost a lot of money immediately post 9-11 because of the public perception that flying was a risky activitity. So they drove more, which in absolute terms was a far riskier activity. But it was perceived generally as being safer, thus illustrating that the general public has a very poor ability to judge relative risks accurately. (And, as it turned out, so did bond rating firms.) So maybe Bierfeldt should have viewed what he was involved in as Kabuki theatre.

And the characterization of where he was questioned as being as "small, windowless room" seems unnecessarily dramatic. Form follows function. What need would the TSA have for doing questioning in a spacious, airy, light-filled room? Would Bierfeldt have preferred that the questioning be done at the inspection checkpoint where everyone looking at him would have assumed that they were looking at a Perp? Wasn't it more dignified for him to be questioned in private?

I assume it's because the traveler does not believe that TSOs have unbridled powers or limitless authority, but are required to abide by the provisions of the legislation which specifies their duties.

It is a greater problem that the TSA management/legal has apparently interpreted that legislation to suit themselves and that no other arm of government has (yet) seen fit to rein them in. If you cannot see that demanding the reason why one has $x is clearly outside the remit of a TSO then I apologize for resorting to a tired cliche:
If you are not part of the solution then you are part of the problem.

W.

It depends on what you mean by "wrong." TSA's brief is, evidently, whatever TSA chooses. However, the Constitution precludes compelled answers under these circumstances and, as I've said a number of times, TSOs have no right of detention or arrest, nor do they have the right to seize non-contraband (and I'm not even sure they have the right to seize contraband).

That's correct -- it is all a dog-and-pony show that does little or nothing to keep commercial aviation safe.

It was, indeed, security theater. I used to be a professional actor and I'm a member of SAG, AFTRA and Equity. If TSA wants me to be part of the performance they can call my agent and pay me my rate. Otherwise, I have no interest in sacrificing my constitutionally-secured rights on the altar of airline profits.

Why? Presumably the room was small and lacked windows. Again, TSA has no powers of detention or arrest.

Given that TSA has no power of arrest or detention, they have no need of a room at all.

I suspect that Bierfeldt would have preferred that no questioning be done at all. Bierfeldt was, unfortunately, unaware of his rights. I am not. If TSA ever pulled a stunt like this with me, there would be arrests, and I would be the complaining witness, not the arrestee.

I'd like to be able to say the same of myself. How would you handle the situation? You could get up and leave, but TSA staff could still prevent you from going to the gate from which your flight will depart. Would you have refused to leave the search area in the first place?

Since one would expect a room at an airport used for questioning to be small and windowless (because its function does not require anything more grandiose), then why was it necessary for the article linked to in the first post to so state? The author made it sound like there was something objectionable about being questioned in such a room, above and beyond the questioning itself. It was as if the author was saying, "not only was Bierfeldt taken away from the checkpoint for further questions, but the frosting-on-the-cake was that the room was small and windowless. It would only have been remarkable if Bierfieldt had been taken to some other kind of room, such as an airport lounge room.

It comes down to tone. The author of the article was trying to place everything that the TSA and airport police did in the worst possible light. I guess it is a knee-jerk reaction for me to play devil's advocate when I encournter this type of "journalism."

Outside of logistical concerns with space availability in a terminal, I’ll hazard a guess that there are some psychological advantages to having these sorts of accommodations.


What do you want to bet that if this exchange had happened at the checkpoint there would’ve been no condescension and four-letter words from the TSOs and LEOs?

Because a small windowless room is an ideal place to do exactly what was done, attempt to take away the rights of Mr. Bierfeldt. That is the significance of the statement and it was necessary to state it. Earlier you ask if Mr. Bierfeldt would prefer being questioned at the checkpoint. I can't answer for him. But if I am going to be questioned I prefer that it be in a place where it can be seen by all, even if public at large assumes I'm "a perp". When it comes to tyranny, sunshine is a good disinfectant. I'd bet the treatment would have been much more professional if the checkpoint was the place where the questioning in this case took place.

I understand your point that you are put off by the tone of the article. I have the same knee jerk reaction to those who would use authority they don't have to attempt to take away the rights of others.

In our republic there is no excuse for this sort of tyranny and to pretend otherwise is foolish in the extreme.

No, I would have demanded to see the GSC for my airline. If the TSO refused to give me my money back, I'd call a policeman and demand that the TSO be arrested for theft. If the TSO physically prevented me from retrieving my money, I'd call a policeman and demand that the TSO be arrested for robbery. And if the TSO put his hands on me, I would defend myself and then see that he is charged with battery.

I have had run-ins with TSA before, though none as dramatic as this. I don't have time to do a search right now, but I've previously detailed an incident at LAX where a TSO took my bag while I was bending down to tie my shoes. I hadn't the slightest hesitation about yelling, at the top of my lungs, "Stop right there and bring that bag back!" This resulted in quite a commotion at the WTMD, but the end result was a supervisor promised to talk to the TSO about not taking my property without permission or removing it from my sight. It only took a couple of extra minutes of my time.

I want to be very clear: I have nothing but respect for law enforcement officers, even to the point of giving them considerable leeway when it involves what I consider border-line constitutional rights issues. The way I see it, LEOs are there to protect me and protect my property. They have a difficult, dangerous and demoralizing job and I will always try to cooperate with them.

TSOs, on the other hand, serve no purpose at all. There function is to provide the allusion of security so that the Kettles and Gomers will continue to buy tickets to fly. They are not protecting me or my property, they merely protecting airline income and I already contribute enough to that. As long as TSOs are polite and professional, I will be polite in return and allow them to that which the courts have confirmed as constitutional, but only that which the courts have confirmed as constitutional. As soon as they cross the line into an unconstitutional and illegal usurpation of government power at the expense of my individual and inalienable rights, I will resist and will not cooperate, even if it means I might miss a flight or otherwise be delayed. TSA was created by an administration that had less regard for the Constitution than any other administration in history. TSA continues primarily due to momentum and the fact that the current administration has more pressing issues to deal with. I will, however, do my part by calling out any TSO that attempts to exceed the limited powers afforded to the government under the Constitution.

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.

I wonder how much of the flap had to do with wanting to see the money. Money in a briefcase is pretty cool looking. Not that it is excusable, in any way. Perhaps if he were carrying this.