If you only knew how wrong you are in this case.

I WANT oversight, but there is a better way to get it than to promote an organization that makes it's living crossing every line of decency imaginable.

While the ACLU takes many positions I find personally abhorrent, when it comes to protecting my Constitutional rights, they get a big ^ from me, because they don't infringe on my Constitutional rights.

I don't believe the ACLU has been found by a federal district court to have engaged in unlawful administrative searches. TSA has.

I would like to see the codification of that somewhere.

I have read a directive that basically said what I had mentioned and that CBP was to be notified if the screening took place at the port of exit. Granted, this was several years ago, but if you have something to show otherwise, I will stand corrected.

I found the directive you referred to and I will look for a basis of authority for this.

Has there been a case where this "contraband" has been seized?

OK, re-reading the directive, it seems as though it uses the term "contraband" is used in an unusual manner. I may be wrong, but I believe that this simply means an item "for referral to law enforcement" and not necessarily an item that cannot clear the checkpoint. I think this is within the spirit of what I had previously read. Thoughts?

Operations Directive

OD-400-54-2: Discovery of Contraband During the Screening Process

Expiration: Indefinite

Summary

This directive provides guidance to ensure nationwide consistency in the appropriate referral or initiation of civil enforcement actions for incidents involving discovery of contraband during TSA screening procedures.

Procedures

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)
Point of Contact

Kimberly Siro, Office of Compliance, (571) 227-[REDACTED] (work), [REDACTED] (cell), or email to [email protected].

/s/
Jonathan J. Fleming
Chief Operating Officer

Thoughts? Yes! TSA has determined that United States currency in amounts greater than $10,000 is contraband.

However, they cannot or will not articulate how that cash is a threat to the safe operation of a given flight should that money just happen to make it onto the aircraft.

I think this is an excellent example of TSA stepping outside of the limited Administrative Search they are authorized to conduct which is limited to WEI.

TSA is acting outside of the law.

But that is nothing new is it?

In other words, you believe in the literal meaning of the word contraband? I will look for something that would substantiate this. If it's "contraband" per se, then there has to be a provision of Federal Law stating so.

What I think the OD means is not important.

What is important is that TSO's have been instructed to involve a LEO if they find certain things. $10,000+ is one of those. Apparently $4,700 does it also.

Now I do believe that referral to a LEO for doing something that is perfectly legal exceeds the limited Administrative Search for Weapons, Explosives and Incendiaries that TSA is authorized to conduct.

When they exceed the scope of their Administrative Search they are violating the law and should be held accountable for that action.

As far as the meaning of the OD, seems very clear to me. Just read it for what it is without trying to further define the language.

You don't seem to get it. The TSA doesn't feel the need to follow federal law, and the ACLU is the best hope of forcing them to do so.

You don't like what they've done in the past, and won't give them a chance to do right by you now...You prefer to keep them as a villain, as opposed to allowing them to do something you feel is right.

I vaguely remember one case where the ACLU defended a Klan member, he was represented by a black ACLU attorney.

I would suggest Institute for Justice, but you'd probably have objections to them as well.

In their limited scope of "civil rights" they do have principles. While I wish they would learn that the number 2 existed, they have also done things that I strongly agree with. Best example from my own area, they got involved when a Chief of Police denied CPR to a man "known to be in an intimate relationship with another man". The man subsequently died and the chief and town were sued. This wasn't a cop who chose not to provide CPR (that is always a personal choice), this was a cop who physically prevented a lay rescuer from providing CPR and enlisted his subordinates to enforce that edict.

The site doesn't have the finished story. When I called for an update, intending to write an article for a newsletter, I was told "the matter has been resolved to the satisfaction of all parties." This is usually code for "the town paid out millions and got a gag order in return."

I don't agree with everything ACLU does, but I'm glad they are there to stand up when some thug with a badge decides you deserve to die for no reason other than said thug's own prejudice. TSA is no better than that police chief, and I want someone with the stones to stand against them when a passenger get d!cked over.

I read a few of their briefs and they seem like a great organization. Everything I saw looked pretty legitimate and reasonably argued. ^

Thanks for that update. I've been wondering what the outcome of that case was.

I've always argued that the Bierfeldt case is a horrible example to use in the fight against TSA. I just don't see his argument as being reasonable. Regardless of how you feel about TSA investigating the money, Bierfeldt's demeanor muddies the waters significantly. Had he simply played along and captured the recording, this would be a much easier case. Now, the TSA can say something like "We did not allow him past the checkpoint because he failed to cooperate with the screening process. He was allowed to proceed once the FBI determined that they had no interest in investigating the matter further." Or something along those lines. Just my opinion.