Again, refer to my legal points. Absent any reasonable suspicion developed prior to discovering the amount was below the threshold, I don't see why it would have continued. I believe the rights questions were diversionary, attempting to take the focus off his behavior and redirect to the officers. This tactic is nothing new to police.

To answer your question, they would have to demonstrate that the detention was no longer than necessary to resolve any reasonable suspicion. There is no legal requirement to tell an individual that they are free to leave, however it is judged on what the person believed at the time. If they had custody of his ID or the money, then it can be reasonably assumed that he felt he was not.

You are making an assumption that none of us truly knows the answer to. The parties involved have to account for their actions, not me.

If there was no crime and no intent to commit a crime what could possibly be revealed?

Asking about his legal rights was perfectly reasonable especially since he was not breaking any laws. His behavior was always polite, the officers knew he was not breaking any laws and that he did not have to answer any questions. They tried to provoke a response from Bierfeldt, failed, treated him in an abusive manner, and got caught. Blaming the victim, Bierfeldt, for how he was treated is distracting from the issue at hand.

That issue is, Was Bierfeldt legally required to answer their questions? since the answer appears to be no his behavior is inconsequential.

If there is no crime or an intent to commit one what is the legal basis to require someone to answer the question? You keep trying to blame the victim, in this country I am innocent until proven guilty and I am under no legal obligation to assist proving my innocence or guilt.

Watch the James Duane video; he does a better job of explaining it than I. But I'll try to give some reasons:

1. Officer asks a question; passenger gives a response. A little while later in the conversation, officer acts the exact same question --- except this time, the passenger gives a slightly different response. The officer can jump on the contradiction as a willful lie, and charge the passenger with obstruction of justice.

2. In the course of the discussion about the supposed "crime", evidence of other "crimes" could be inadvertently revealed. Silly hypothetical: if the passenger says that he left his hotel an hour ago to drive to the airport, and the hotel is 100 miles from the airport, the passenger has just inadvertently confessed to speeding. Now, speeding may not be much of a crime ... but now the officer has probable cause to push further, and more problems result.

3. Intent to commit a crime is irrelevant ... ignorance of the law is no excuse, right? And unless you're an expert on the thousands of laws that apply to you as a citizen in a particular city, county, and state, there's no way for you to know that "you haven't committed a crime" at any given moment.

Keep in mind that while TSA is supposed to be focused on the security of air travel, its employees are required by TSA policy to report any potential violation of any law, whether or not it's related to TSA's mission. So ... remaining silent (or, at least, non-responsive) isn't as irrational as it might seem.

I watched the whole video and it was pretty interesting. The argument presented is very persuasive.

In today's NY Times:

ACLU

the key is "supsected ter'wrist"

christmas will never die tho it is the classic cluster-f*ck destroying the separation of church and state myth (n.b. myth). i'm jewish and christmas is not my holiday and personally, i do not think christmas s/b a legal holiday in a country with no state religion just like yom kippur should not be a legal holiday here in u.s unless we have a state religion of judaism but then again, who am i

as to "good old adolph", i'll pass if you please

now, with all that aside (you know i couldn't resist, right? ), yes, the aclu has had some pretty strange bedfellows such as those in favor of gun control and then the nra. the aclu does serve a purpose and i just wish politicians would stop using them to their advantage but like i said above, "but then again, who am i?"
who you calling a nut-job willis?

I am not trying to blame "the victim" in this case. I was simply highlighting how his actions added fuel to the fire. My original post on this matter simply stated that the case wasn't a good example to use as a basis for legal action, as there are too many opportunities for defense. That's just my opinion. I've also shown why I hold this opinion.

We'll see how this plays out.

Even if he was breaking a law, he is not required to answer any questions without his lawyer being present.

Afghan Civil Liberties Union?

Why is a tax-exempt charity dealing with non-citizens who have never been to the United States? I'm sure there's no political motive there.

For those who don't see Christmas as a legitimate legal holiday, kindly send any premium pay you may have earned back to your employer. We will also expect you to be at work bright and early on December 25th. Sorry if the climate control system is shut down, there's no use running it for 3 people.

There was nothing wrong with his behavior. Bierfeldt's behavior was calm and rational throughout the interrogation. There is no "reasonable suspicion" attached to carrying cash domestically here in the U.S. on Planet Earth, regardless how much cash one is carrying.

Bierfeldt ASKED whether he was free to go, and was told no. Further, when the airport idjits had their noses rubbed in it by some unidentified superior officer who finally declared Bierfeldt free to go, the TSO involved still attempted to refuse him access to the sterile area until overruled by his superior officer.

There mere fact that a traveler does not wish to disclose to you how much cash he/she is carrying and/or why, or does not wish to disclose any other information, certainly does not meet any level of articulable probable cause (which doesn't apply to you guys, given that you're merely glorified baggage searchers), nor is it reason for suspicion -- other than on Planet Paranoia where TSA lives. Since I'm a citizen of the United States on Planet Earth, I would not have even offered the courtesy Bierfeldt offered (to answer the questions if someone would assure him answers were legally required) -- I'd have simply told you (ever so politely) I wasn't going to discuss or disclose that information.

The fact that I have nothing to hide does not by any means imply I have everything to reveal.

All I was saying was some lawyers just love to argue the law (and win...).

Calm and rational, but non-compliant. For the hundredth time, put the legal issue aside until it is adjudicated. I'm simply referring to his role in this event, which I believe was significant.

Your complaint about the money is with the TSA, not me. The reasonable suspicion I was referring to wasn't about the money itself, it's what was developed afterward. I wasn't there, I don't know.

He was declared free to go once he identified the source of the funds.

Why do you think I'm a screener? Because I feel that there are holes in the case? Try again.

Apparently the TSA believes that large amounts of cash should be investigated by law enforcement officers. That opens Pandoras box and allows everything else to ensue. There are two 4th Amendment violations that were cited in the lawsuit, this matter is for the courts to decide.