Listen to the recordings again, I don't see any attitude on the part of Bierfeldt. He asked one question, was he legally required to explain why he had the cash. No one answered that question, so the answer must be, no he wasn't. Attempting to blame the victim does not change what happened

As far as his being cleared to pass the check, listen to the recording. After the police cleared him the TSO can clearly be heard to say that he is not going to allow Bierfeldt past the checkpoint.

His demeanor was not out of line. He was asking about his rights in light of a search that the TSA was taking too far.

Further, your argument highlighted above serves to bring to the fore that the TSA is searching for more than WEI. I don't think they will go there.

Contraband is defined as
1. anything prohibited by law from being imported or exported.
2. goods imported or exported illegally.
3. illegal or prohibited trade; smuggling.

Carrying large sums of cash in the United States is not illegal. The operations directive includes cash as the last item of list of items that are already illegal, implying that cash is now illegal. And to the average TSO they would read it as such, otherwise the St. Louis incident would have never have happened.

Frankly I am mystified as to why the directive was ever issued. TSO's should contact law enforcement when they find items that are already illegal under the law. Cash is not illegal and the TSA is overstepping its authority by declaring cash as contraband/illegal.

If you ever make it down to Houston, stop by a place on Greens road that is frequented by many of the people your employer and you abuse on a daily basis, make sure to wear your smurf outfit and make sure to identify yourself as "TSORON", there are some people who would probably like to "pat you down" using a criteria known only to them:D

Let me know, I would be glad to give you the name of the place in a pm.

^^^^^

Our Constitutional right to be free of an unlawful search of our person should never be dependent upon our "demeanor" at the time of the search.

if the Founding Fathers could read some of the lame explanations used today to justify government oppression, they would no doubt be appalled.

Therefore, you are concurring with what I said. The term "contraband" is not being used in it's literal form. The mere use of the word in any other context than it's legal definition is disturbing to say the least.

Really, when he asked questions with calm decorum while TSOs and LEOs hurled expletives at him?

My argument is not based on legality, it is based on the totality of the circumstances and how it will influence any litigation.

I don't know how the TSA will try to defend the situation, but Bierfeldt's actions certainly add several avenues. While it has been held that the simple avoidance of law enforcement is not probable cause in itself, add the circumstances and there is certainly a logical path. Would a reasonable person allow himself to be detained if a simple explanation would prevent it? Would a reasonable person believe that the TSA and police were going to conspire against him because of his political leanings? If Bierfeldt believed that he was going to be labeled a "terrorist" and there was evidence of his connection to a "radical" group, why wouldn't he clarify the record?

Again, I'm not arguing about the legality of the search. That has to be determined in a court of law. You are correct, rights should never be determined by demeanor.

The recording certainly doesn't show professionalism, but waving a red flag at the bull isn't always the answer. A calm decorum is evidence of very little, passive-aggressiveness is just as valid with silence or rude remarks.

No, they would be immediately arrested as terrorists because they would be taking up arms against an oppressive government. Time to feed the tree.

Especially if you are looking for the "big score" to justify your existence.:rolleyes:

To address your first point, he can legally ask what his rights are to his heart's content. What his intentions were, are more than likely another story.

On your second point, I'm sure they will say the money was found incident to a lawful search for WEI. This discovery resulted in the police being notified who subsequently assumed the investigation.

The legal questions I see here are:

1. Can the $10,000 directive be upheld?
2. Was the money discovered during a search for WEI and located in a place where WEI could be?
3. At what point was it discovered that the amount of cash was below the directive's threshold?
4. Was there reasonable suspicion before the amount was confirmed?
5. After the amount was confirmed, was there a reason to continue the investigation?
6. If there was reason to continue the investigation, what facts determined the outcome?

there is a gross misconception that the alcu is just a group of left-wing nut job lawyers who fight for their own left-wing nut jobs. they are actually equal opportunity nut-jobs ;) and fight for, and have fought for, both left-wing and right-wing nut jobs alike based on the issue(s) and not the political views/sides

Every Federal agency looks for that. Congressional reports can effect funding levels tremendously. However, you can't have a line item in your budget proposal asking for "Funding to defend/settle lawsuits for unlawful searches/detention". Somehow I think the budget committee would give that a :rolleyes:.

Freeing suspected terrorists and trying to kill Christmas; not a good way to make friends.

It's like saying "What about all the good things Hitler did?".

But yes, they have been on both sides of the fence.