Earlier you agreed with me that one's demeanor shouldn't be a factor in determining whether a search was unconstitutional. How do you square that position with the above?

For the sake of argument, let's presume that Bierfeldt planned the whole thing. He didn't kowtow to their demands, so I guess that makes him "non-compliant". So what? One cannot lay any portion of blame on Bierfeldt that the TOS and LEO's involved responded like common schoolyard bullies.


What, exactly, developed later? One didn't have to be there; it's on tape. Bullies acted like bullies. Bierfeldt, bless his libertarian heart, acted like a United States citizen asserting his rights. Do you think it would somehow have made a stronger case if he had simply refused to answer at all? I think it would have turned out substantially the same way. Do you think it would somehow have made a stronger case if he had been "compliant"? Had he been "compliant", no one would be in court testing TSA's limits.


And your point is ..... ? Actually, the original TSO continued to detain him for several more minutes after he finally identified the source of the funds. Unlike Bierfeldt, I suppose I'd still be in jail -- they'd have had to waterboard me to get me to answer those questions.


Sorry; my mind ran faster than my fingers -- I was using "you" in the universal sense, meaning "all of TSA" -- I'll be more precise in the future.


To paraphrase the inimitable words of Bumble ... if the TSA presumes that, then the TSA is a a$$. And this is how courts get to decide questions of this kind -- some patriot steps up, draws a line, and says "this far and no farther". Civil disobedience has a long and proud history in this country.

Beirfeldt's actions have nothing to do with the legality of the search, I believe they contributed to the length of time he was detained. Two separate animals in this case.

I really don't understand why your getting wrapped up on the meaning of contraband.

In the OD the intent is clear that TSO's must do something if they find $10,000.

Now most people, excepting TSA employees, know that currency is not an illegal item. Yet a person may be questioned for the simply act of going about their business.

It is also very clear that TSA can only use the Administrative Search for certain items. Cash money in any amount is not one of those and by taking notice of cash money TSA exceeds the bounds of the Administrative Search and in turn violate the law.

So the meaning is of little importance, its the action that TSA is looking to create that needs to be analyzed..

First off these non-citizens are being held in Guantanamo, a U.S. military base, which makes it sovereign U.S. soil, just like an embassy is considered to be part of the U.S. Which means the rules of law for the United States still apply to them. If they have committed a crime then they should be put on trial, holding people in prison without a trial happens in Iran and North Korea. Do we really want to be in that same group? Why is the ACLU involved, because if we start making exceptions in one case we can start making exceptions in others. Just ask the hundreds of thousands of American citizens who were sent to dentition camps that were inside the United States during WWII, because they were of Japanese descent and only because of that.

As to working Christmas, I have for many years, not every industry shuts down on Christmas. For example the hotels and airlines you use don't close on Christmas. So I'll be more than glad to show up for work and I'll turn on the climate control if an employer wants me to work. If it costs to much money than they don't have to open the office and I'll stay home and you can pay me like every other employee on that day, that's the employers choice.

Try to remember there are millions of people who live in this country who are not Christian. I am Jewish so I don't consider Christmas to be a holiday for me, that doesn't mean you can't celebrate it. However one former employer refused to allow me to take Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur off even though I was one of 10 out of 250 employees who requested it. I was told it was double dipping because I got "their" holidays and my holidays off. The difference is I don't get a paid holiday for mine and their holidays are not my holidays..

I recall reading the same thing. A person's attitude has nothing to do with wether or not they are at fault when interacting with law enforcement. Bierfeldt was not breaking any laws when traveling with $4700.00 cash and he is not legally obligated to answer any questions.

Isn't it the courts (judges) that made the final decision?
The ACLU only presented the case to the courts, the courts then made the final decision.
Maybe the problem is not the ACLU, but the courts and the opposing lawyers inability to win the case.

Don't try to turn me into the Devil's Advocate here. My original point was that his actions contributed to the scenario. I'm not going to get into the how the TSO's and Police sounded on the tape, that would be several MORE pages.

I think he could have been compliant, captured the recording and this would have been a pretty clean case for the ACLU. Again, his actions have given the TSA avenues of defense. In life, sometimes you have to appear to lose to ultimately win the game.

That is for the TSA to explain. If you remember the original comment, it only dealt with Bierfeldt's role. Once the source of funds was identified, his role was complete.

So you don't believe that the courts would see the same 4th Amendment issues if he had answered the questions?

Because in law enforcement, the term generally means anything that is unlawful to possess. Why would they use such wording? Doesn't make sense to me, unless there is a meaning I've never encountered.

As for referring $10,000 to the LEO's, I can see both sides of the situation. Again, this matter is for the courts.

YES! FH is spot on here!!! ^

Two points.

The OD had an objective that exceeds TSA Administrative Search parameters. Whoever the person is that signed that document should be fired for stupidity.

I see only one side of having $10,000. It is not illegal and is not a concern for anyone other than the person who has the funds.

Should they do something illegal with said funds then LEO would have a reason to investigate. But not until that point.

I agree with WWNF on that point. This case is a good time to get "wrapped up" on the meaning of "contraband" when it is applied to the TSA and cash. Let the courts decide if TSA can arbitrarily declare something that is lawful to be contraband.

nah, just messing with you and messing up on my own attemtp at humor

see my entire post-the aclu keeps strange bedfellows who have been on "both sides of the political aisle"-not just the left.

now as to christmas...a legitimate holiday yes. a legitimate religious holiday yes again. a legitimate legal holiday, the law says yes but imho, i simply disagree. as to working on christmas day, i have and did so for 7 years along with other non-christian employees in order to give my staff who celebrated christmas the day off (n.b. this was a 9-5 job with the exception of the day after thanksgiving thru january 2nd where it became 24/7 as being a central cash vault, we were directly affected by retail store holiday sales which caused our work load to quadruple)

Sovereignty still remains with Cuba, according to the lease. The reason they brought the detainees there was because of this status. At no point in time has a government faced such a strange legal issue such as this. We could always leave it to the Afghans and Iraqis to mete out justice. But a true Humanitarian can predict how that will work out. Good or bad, our treatment is much better than what they faced with previous regimes. (assuming they committed the same type of offenses) Is it up to our expected standards? Probably not. I believe the ACLU saw a sitting duck in this case and took a shot. Bringing the detainees to the mainland brings on a whole new set of problems. Legally, they would be paroled into the U.S. Thus, they would have to be removed according to the INA. What country is going to issue a travel document for a suspected, much less a convicted terrorist? We have enough Cuban aggravated felon parolees that we can't get rid of. Do we need to make this any worse?

That was just a dig at goalie, nothing more.

I disagree with employers who don't try to make reasonable concessions for people of other faiths. My point about the ACLU was that they took things way too far. Poll numbers clearly show that.

The memo I saw was worded completely different. This memo only dealt with the LEO's making a referral to CBP if their final destination was outside of the U.S.

From a law enforcement perspective, anyone carrying that much in cash would definitely be worth looking into. However, we are talking about an administrative search for WEI. Can the referrals be justified under an administrative search without additional suspicion? That's what the courts will decide. Personally, I don't see how it does, but I'm not arguing the case and I didn't create the policy.

The is little room for legitimacy in the courtrooms today. It's all about money. He who has the biggest stack usually wins. For a municipality, fighting a well-funded source such as the ACLU can be impossible.

Why? I’ve travelled with large amounts of cash in relation to fundraising activities with 501(c)3 organizations, other FTers have mentioned taking a bankroll to LAS.