Man Detained and Threatened by TSA for Flying with $4,700 Cash

[snot]

"Steve Bierfeldt, a US citizen who tried to board a domestic airplane while carrying $4700 in cash, . . . was detained by the TSA and subjected to abusive language and threats when he said that he would only answer the TSA's inquiries . . . if he was required to by law. The TSA agents threatened to turn him over to the DEA. He was returning from a Ron Paul event in St Louis, MO, and worked for the campaign. The cash on his person arose from sales of t-shirts and stickers at the event.

(snip)

"Exactly what security threat does cash pose to an airplane?"

More including video at http://www.boingboing.net/2009/04/05/man-detained-threate.html

[Deep13]

1. TSA looks for weapons...

...but if looking for weapons they find evidence of other crimes, they are not required to ignore it. Maybe the dude is telling the truth. Maybe it is a cover story. Usually, travelling with a large amount of cash indicates an illegal business, usually drugs.

[msongs]

3. got data to support your claim that people carrying cash are criminals? nt

[Deep13]

11. Trial testimony of numerous cops talking about their experience.

You can read it if you want, but you will have to come to the clerk's office during business hours.

[Gormy Cuss]

79. Cops testimony isn't proof that carrying large amounts of cash is suspicious.

Their experience is based on the people they stop or arrest -- not exactly a representative sample. If cops' anecdotal experience is enough to qualify as reasonable suspicion for the grilling of someone carrying less than $10,000 cash while traveling domestically, we've really gone down the rabbit hole in this country.

[nichomachus]

162. That's claim is just stupid

Cash, absent any other evidence, is not proof of anything -- or even probable cause.

[TexasObserver]

164. As if that means anything.

You have no idea how many people carry cash in the ordinary conduct of their life, and neither do police.

In case you didn't know it, a huge scam is taking place in America, originated under Bush, whereby police routinely seize cash over $500, on the theory that it must be ill gotten gain, if someone is carrying cash. It's without basis in fact, and it should be illegal, but we have law enforcement benefiting greatly. They get to keep cash they seize, in most cases.

In any event, your views are straight out of the stone ages. You clearly believe that any suspicion of criminal conduct justifies seizing cash and brow beating its owner. I suspect you've never had over $500 at one time.

[mainer]

180. The fact SOME criminals carry cash isn't probable cause for arrest.

Because cash, in and of itself, is not a weapon or illegal substance.

Almost all criminals are wearing pants. Should we stop everyone wearing pants?

[Fumesucker]

6. Or maybe you found a car on Craigslist in another city..

Or a zillion other reasons I can think of for having cash rather than plastic.

If your credit is bad you can't even get a card or sometimes even a checking account in the first place.

[Deep13]

10. Yes, it may be perfectly innocent. nt

[WolverineDG]

111. It IS perfectly innocent

up until the time you are found guilty, you are innocent. Carrying cash in large amounts in & of itself is not a crime. That cash posed as much of a threat to airline safety as shampoo in bottles larger than 3 ounces, ie, NONE.


dg

[seabeyond]

8. cash is not "evidence of other crimes" and he does not get to be treated as criminal

for having cash. this is cowardly and absurded our willingness to lose all rights and be treated as criminal.... just cause.

deep.... your attitude is the worst

[Deep13]

9. It's not conclusive or beyond reasonable doubt...

...but it is evidence. The fact that there may be an innocent explanation does not stop police from looking into it. The airport detention is not an arrest. It is a Terry stop, a brief detention for the purpose of confirming or dispelling suspicion as articulated in Terry v. Ohio.

[hlthe2b]

21. It is evidence of nothing.

[Deep13]

27. Oh really?

If a person is found to have an 8-ball in his pocket and $20,000 in cash, does the cash make dealing more likely or less likely? Again, it proves nothing by itself, but I know from professional experience that it is relevant and admissible evidence.

[Coyote_Bandit]

32. Sure it is

But taken by itself having a few thousand dollars in cash ain't evidence of anything other than overzealous cops - and a citizenry willing to put up with their crap.

[hlthe2b]

Funny... you cite a "probable cause" example (drugs)

which is exactly my point. There was NO PROBABLE CAUSE HERE.

TSA was in violation of their legal authority to detain him.

[datasuspect]

97. in a police state

where our fundamental 4th amendment rights have been abrogated by judicial drug warriors, you are absolutely correct.

[Name removed]

22. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

31. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[seabeyond]

35. i say all are cowards that are so fuckin fearful they are willing to give up rights

hand over all power and control, cause they fear oh so much... the big bad boogie man to come and get them.

yup

cowards

wusses

wimps

[Deep13]

38. She said from 1500 miles away.

So, just what what rights do you think this gives up?

[WolverineDG]

116. Privacy for starters

Due process, freedom of association, the right to travel, right against unreasonable search & seizure.......


dg

[14thColony]

146. Oooh! I'll play!

Presumption of innocence for one.

How is this different from that attrocious little Texas town that stops out-of-state cars, seizes any and all cash/valuables from drivers, and then makes them prove their cash/valuables were NOT procedes from drugs? All 100% legal according to federal drug laws - presumption of innocence has been eliminated in seizure cases if any tie-in to drugs, even hypothetical, can be made. You are now guilty until proven even more guilty if it's a means of grabbing your cash.

[WolverineDG]

113. Acutally it is

because you are not "free to leave" to get on your plane & go about your business. The cops have no right to poke around your wallet "just in case" you committed a crime.

dg

[Hawkowl]

159. You're insane

Criminals also wear black clothes, therefore, it is reasonable to detain, harass, and threaten citizens wearing black because they could be criminals.

Police don't get to look into everything they goddamn want just because they are "suspicious".

[hlthe2b]

19. I agree.. what a disgusting assumption to make

[seabeyond]

24. i am so sick and tired of the cowards of this nation that must allow SOMEONE to CONTROL

them and all others cause they are so wussy, weak, chicken, fearful, cowards.....

[Deep13]

34. This is an airport.

And if lawful authority is not in control, then the biggest bully is and we are back to fuedalism with no rights.

[seabeyond]

36. OM FRIGGIN G> cause it is all just so out of control gonna wet my pants i am so afraid

lordy

pathetic

[Deep13]

42. Frankly, your language makes you sound like a little kid.

Like some truck driver's kid who has gotten hold of her Dad's CB radio.

You know, one may recognize danger without having the reaction you describe. Do you wear a seatbelt? Do you look before crossing the street?

[Name removed]

43. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

52. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[seabeyond]

82. . n/t

[14thColony]

149. So....

If TSA is prohibited from interrogating this guy for a perfectly legal amount of cash, that there is NO law against carrying, then that means a bully will beat me up and take my lunch money right at the gate? Holy crap!

Jesus, well...when you put it that way I guess submitting to unregulated government police authority is just the right thing to do to keep us all safe.

Dude, TSA is "the biggest bully" and we have been in the fast lane to feudalism for about 20 years.

[seabeyond]

151. so right on, couldnt agree more and you are funny..... lol lol. n/t

[Deep13]

33. It is not an assumption, it is suspicion.

If they're wrong, they're wrong. But the cops do have a right to ask about it. It is the job of the police to ask questions. Besides, the 5th amendment only guarantees a right against self-incrimination, not self-exculpation. If he had an innocent explanation, he should have said so.

[hlthe2b]

40. "If he had an INNOCENT explanation".....

damn, you have quite the attitude. Whatever happened to "innocent until proven guilty." $4700 is not even enough to allow them to detain going overseas. As many, far more knowledgeable, apparently than you have pointed out, the law allows for questioning at $10k for overseas trips. These guys were abusing their authority. It is none of their damned business and I don't blame the guy for telling them so.

[Deep13]

44. Innocent until proven guilty is a procedural rule for trial.

It is an instruction given to a jury to countact the natural tendency to believe the authorities. It has little application outside of the trial. If it did, we would not be able to indict or even arrest for probable cause.

[hlthe2b]

45. The pre-trial equivalent is "probable cause"

There was none here....

[Occam Bandage]

47. And he wasn't indicted, so you can throw that out the window, too.

$4700 is reason to suspect criminal activity. It isn't reason to do any more than to ask a few questions. Which they did. His refusal to answer questions only deepened the suspicion against him, and reasonably so.

[hlthe2b]

48. It is NOT reason to detain. which they did

$10K is the threshold for suspicion.

[Occam Bandage]

49. His refusal to answer questions was.

He was practically going out of his way to give them a reason to detain him. He could have avoided the entire affair by saying, "Yes, I sell T-shirts outside events, and am on my way back home from last night's Ron Paul rally at the convention center, where I grossed $4700."

[hlthe2b]

55. You are not obligated to answer questions that they are not

authorized to ask. Would it have been the path of least resistance for him to do? Yes. He stood on principle--something I wish more Americans would have the spine to do, as our civil rights continue to be eroded.

[Coyote_Bandit]

60. You are not ***OBLIGATED***

to answer ***ANY*** question that they ask.

You have the right to remain silent.

[Occam Bandage]

64. Of course you have the right to remain silent,

and allow any evidence against you to be presented in a court of law. That doesn't mean they don't have the right to detain you on suspicion of criminal activity.

[seabeyond]

70. that is the wrong of it. your looks.... detain. they have the right. what you wear,.... detain

IF you dont stop, and answer their question, regarldless... we are at their will anytime, any place, for any reason. stop, then we stop. look at ground, no eye contact....

fuck that

we are allowed to have cash.

when asked, we dont have to answer

no more than if it is the way we look, what we wear, or what we sing.

we cannot be detained

[Statistical]

125. Police may only detain you based on reasonable suspicion.

He extent of his suspicious activies:
flying
carrying cash.

No judge in the country would consider that REASONABLE SUSPICION.

Would a REASONABLE person believe he is likely to be committing a crime? No.
Then he was unlawfully detained which is a violation of his civil rights.

The right to silence was NOT to protect criminals it was to protect innocent persons and to avoid the govt having the ability to detain citizens at will.

[Occam Bandage]

62. I don't see any evidence they aren't authorized to ask those questions.

Yes, you are not allowed to transport $10,000 in cash, but that isn't really relevant. That isn't what he was under suspicion of.

[hlthe2b]

63. Since when is $4700 = $10K?

You answered your own question.

[Occam Bandage]

65. Let's try this again, this time with you reading my post.

"Yes, you are not allowed to transport $10,000 in cash, but that isn't really relevant. That isn't what he was under suspicion of."

[hlthe2b]

67. So, what WAS he "under suspicion of (sic)?"

[Occam Bandage]

72. Probably drug trafficking, given how they were talking about the DEA.

Not sure why you put the "sic" there. My sentence was valid. Were you calling attention to my preposition use? Many people think you can't put a preposition at the end of a sentence or a relative clause, but that "rule" is more a myth made up by Latin-obsessed grammarians, much like the ban on the split infinitive.

[hlthe2b]

75. If you think so...

I argue with considerable support on BOTH issues. But, my intention is not to insult you.

[Occam Bandage]

81. As do I.

Now let's shift the topic to prepositions. I have a degree in linguistics. I can tell you with absolute certainty that English freely allows prepositions at the end of sentences, that it has for centuries, that sentence- and clause-final prepositions are attested in common usage throughout the history of modern English, and that the only people who have ever said that you cannot are a handful of grammarians in the 1800s operating under the strange and bizarre assumption that English grammar ought conform to Latin grammar (and the sad parrots who have dutifully carried their host of mistaken beliefs forward).

[hlthe2b]

85. and Merriam Webster now cites "NUCULAR" as an acceptable

alternative to "NUCLEAR" because of years of Bush* and his ilck being unable to pronounce it. Yes, it is true--go look it up. MW got lots of shit for doing so a few years ago. So, grammatical "rules" can be twisted as one pleases. So can morals, legal authorities, and social conventions. At least you are consistent.

[Occam Bandage]

95. The "no-prepositions" rule is something of a recent innovation as well,

and is based on the ignorant belief that English is a form of Latin. It's never been anything but a shibboleth for those who have been indoctrinated by the same misguided and mistaken grammarians. It is true that languages change over time, though. Just look at my sigline, written in the 1380s, and pronounced: "Ahnd sma-lay foh-weh-lays mah-kayn may-loh-di-uh, that sley-peyn al the nicht with oh-payn ee-ye."

(Which is one of Chaucer's more recognizable lines, which is why I picked it. "To ferne halwes, kowthe in sondry londes," though from the very next stanza, would just be confusing)

[CreekDog]

148. he didn't have to answer

they can ask all they want.

but why is it suspicious to have $4700 when taking a flight? that is not a suspicious amount to have.

[14thColony]

152. Agree 100 percent with you

Where did all these "I Heart My Police State" types come from?! Jesus H. Christ, but we are raring for some good 'ol totalitarianism, aren't we?

[mainer]

181. He only demanded his rights. Now THAT'S illegal????

[Deep13]

54. Have you got case law for that?

[hlthe2b]

56. If your read the entire thread, at least 6 people have pointed out

that the threshold is $10K

[Deep13]

58. I don't have time for that.

Will you give me the citation?

[hlthe2b]

61. You've got to be kidding. Is your reading comprehension that

POOR?

[Deep13]

156. Blame public education.

I pop on and off of DU as kind of a palette cleanser. One can only read, write and research serious crime for so long before needing a distraction. I don't read whole threads because I have others better things to do. Why what's your excuse?

[hlthe2b]

166. I don't suffer fools lightly...

[Individualist]

191. ...

:thumbsup:

[Coyote_Bandit]

78. Oh, please

If you don't have time to consider the commentary of others then maybe you shouldn't be so insentent on repeatedly pressing your point. And maybe you should do your own fucking legal research.

You obviously have time to make your arguemnt. Just no time to consider or listen to others. How rude. We have time and make time for the things that are important to us.

No point to further dialogue here with you. It is a fucking waste of my time - and I have better things to do than try to dialogue with someone who admits they will not listen or consider my commentary.

[Deep13]

157. I've done it. I passed the bar exam.

If you can't produce a single case citation that says 10K is the cut off for a Terry stop, then sit down and have a nice frosty mug of STFU.

[hlthe2b]

165. Right... And I have marsh land in the the Gulf of Mexico for sale

[Deep13]

193. .

:rofl:

Well, I'd love to waste time exchanging fourth-grade insults, but I have to get back to my awesome job fighting crime. Ciao.

[14thColony]

179. Yes, the citation is on CBP Declaration Form 6059B

Whereon a travler is asked "Are you or any family members traveling with you bringing $10,000 or more in U.S. dollars or foreign equivalent in any form into the United States? - If Yes, you must complete Customs Form 4790."

Use Google Images for your very own look-see.

Please note 1) this is only for arrival into the US, and so does not apply in this case, since it was domestic travel, and 2) even for an international traveler, $10k in cash is NOT illegal or grounds for suspicion, it just has to be declared.

I am aware of no US law that says carrying large amounts of cash constitutes a priori probable cause to believe a crime has been committed, except for the ridiculous drug forfeiture laws that are written to assume guilt, and require proof of innocence.

[Dr.Phool]

118. You have a right not to answer their questions.

The most fundamental right in a free society, is the right to be left alone.

[Statistical]

130. He has no obligation to provide evidence against himself.

A failure to co-operate with the police can not be the reason police can detain you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_suspicion

THE ONLY REASON THE POLICE CAN DETAIN YOU IS REASONABLE SUSPICION.

His unwillingness to put up with an unlawful detainment CANT THEN BE USED to continue the detainment.

Before even detaining his 1 second the TSA needed reasonable suspicion.
Up to that point the whole sum of his "suspicious activities" were:
1)flying
2)carrying money

That isn't sufficent to detain him. If he WANTED to he could assist the officers but he is not OBLIGATED to do so.
Given lack of reasonable suspicion they had no authority to detain him.

Anything after the detention (his failure to answer questions) can't be retroactively used to support the initial unlawful detention.

This was EXACTLY what the founding fathers wanted to avoid.
Anyone who defends this has no respect for the Bill of Rights.

[Deep13]

53. By coincidence, there was no arrest or indictment either.

This is a Terry stop, not a prosecution.

[hlthe2b]

57. Cowardice in those who will not stand up for their own rights...

leads to more abuse of authority and erosion of our rights. Is that what you are proposing, Deep?

[seabeyond]

66. leads to more abuse of authority and erosion of our rights.... preach it brother/sister....

that is it in a nustshell and it is all about cowardice, so very very afraid.

i have absolutely no patients or tolerance for those today that are willing to allow more and more of their rights be taken, willingly hand them to authority....

cowards.

[Deep13]

158. What the hell are you talking about?

What rights are eroding? You talk like this is some radicially new, intrusive measure. It isn't. This has been the law for forty years. The 4th Amed. itself only says that search or seizure cannot be "unreasonable." Well, a Terry stop is minimal intrusion based on "reasonable suspicion" which basically means some explanation beyond a mere hunch. And the remedy for violation is exclusion from trial. This guy was not indicted, ergo, no trial. The only thing probable cause is needed for are indictments and warrants.

Well, seems like I'll never convince you and any of the other knee-jerk anarchists in this thread so I guess I'm screwed then. Oh wait, I have to convince YOU. I only have to convince the Court of Appeals. And they've actually read the law! Hoorah!

[CreekDog]

147. It's not a procedural rule, it's in the constitution

i can see you didn't pass the bar, and probably only 12th grade government by luck. :eyes:

[hlthe2b]

167. I see you aren't buying his claim either....

:rofl:

[CreekDog]

172. actually i do (in part)

what he said about ending a sentence with a preposition is correct.

but the rest of it's crap. :rofl:

[hlthe2b]

174. Actually the grammarian is another poster...

;)

[CreekDog]

175. aw shoot

i hate when i mix up people that are making the same moronic points. :hide:

:evilgrin: :hi:

[liberalhistorian]

189. I've been a paralegal for fifteen years and I'm sure as

hell not buying his claim either. And funny how he has all the time in the world to shove his point of view down our throats six ways to Sunday, but suddenly claims he doesn't have time to read the whole thread when he's challenged to find a citation to support his egregious and undemocratic beliefs.

You are NOT required to answer questions and refusal to answer questions is NOT, in and of itself, reason for detainment. And carrying cash while flying isn't a crime, either, at least not under 10k. It's none of their damned business why you have it or why you're carrying it. And, if he is, indeed, an attorney, then his attitude is a damned frightening one.

[shraby]

15. 1. Most times checks are not accepted in

states other than the one the person resides in.
2. Many people don't have credit cards anymore.
3. Some people buy stuff on ebay and go to pick up the item with
cash to pay for it..another case where a check won't do.
When traveling, carrying some money will ensure you can buy something when you see what you want, including taxi fare, motel/hotel, restaurants, souvenirs, etc.
Many reasons there are for carrying cash. Doesn't have to be an illegal reason. Authorities are just using that for an excuse to confiscate.

[MADem]

16. "Cash is privacy."

It was obvious what the guy was doing. That's why, after the nitwits put two and two together (Jeez, look at these bumper stickers and tee shirts...where's he coming from?) they let him board his plane.

I hate to say someone on Fox has a point, but they're correct. Any other method of payment is traceable, and if you don't want to be traced, for WHATEVER reason, cash IS privacy. It doesn't matter if you're having three Rob Roys at the bar, or buying a bit of pot, or having a slice of cheesecake after your doctor put you on cholesterol lowering medication....cash IS privacy. "T'aint nobody's business if I do."

This sort of thing used to happen to me all the time. I never got hassled because of my cash (I never carried that much) but I got questioned and pulled aside like that all the time, starting immediately after Nahn Wun Wun... and I never knew if it was because of my politics or my background, or both--in fact, EVERY time I got on a plane I was selected for "additional screening." Every single time. No exceptions.

It's funny, in the waning days of the Bush administration, it was like a cloud lifted, and somehow, some way, I was taken off the "terra list." The first time it happened I was flying cross country to LA, I arrived (early, as always) at the airport, psyched up for "the abuse" (which does take a lot out of one) and....it was like a miracle. No refusal at the auto-kiosk to obtain a boarding pass. No sideways glances by the gate agents. No "Big RED S" or some halfass "You Are A Bad Guy" code circled in red on my boarding pass. The guy at the security checkpoint looked at my boarding pass and ID and told me to have a nice day. I went through the Xray crapola ...and no one stopped me and said "Come with us."

I felt like I was sneaking into the movies, or something.

That audio tape brings up a lot of memories, none of them pleasant.

[JackRiddler]

69. Plus we're talking about PEANUTS.

I don't have $5K to my name right now but for someone travelling from anywhere to anywhere it's not a very impressive amount to have in cash and not even half of the threshold for declaration. This is harrassment, pure and simple (for whatever reason, probably trivial: that it was time to pull someone out of the line, that he talked back, that he acted as though he had rights, possibly that he was a political regardless of variety thereof...)

[MADem]

105. ....he acted as though he had rights!!! Why the NOIVE of that guy!

He looked like a goody-two shoes, too. Maybe they thought he was an easy target for a bit of gratuitous bulllying?

[seabeyond]

108. he acted as though he had rights!!! .... YES. EXACTLY. the audacity

of the man.

yup.

[Ikonoklast]

18. I routinely carry large sums of cash in the operation of my business.

And I travel all over the Lower 48.

I once flew to California with thirty-five thousand dollars in cashier's checks, payable to me, in order to purchase equipment. No one saw them, but I'm sure if they did they would have blown a fuse.

You may as well say that driving a car is evidence of criminal behavior, as many criminals drive cars.

[dysfunctional press]

41. is it illegal to carry $4700 in cash?

that's THE ONLY issue that matters in this case.

[Statistical]

86. WTF?

So you think it is ok to live in country where you can be detained at will based on a hunch?

Please cite the statute where carrying large amounts of cash is a crime?
If the person did NOT commit a crime they should not have been detained. Period.

I guess some people think citizens being detained without warrant based on the whims of govt employees is American but I don't.

[seabeyond]

89. two earrings, detain. tattoo, detain. shaved head... d etained.

have cash, be deatained. answer questions.

i want to be able to say, .... no, i dont have to answer a damn question cause i have cash.

[Statistical]

110. It only takes a dozen or so lawsuits.

City of Norfolk has some strict "gun laws".
However State of VA has pre-emmption which prevents any locality for passing gun control.
All gun control laws must be passed at state level and apply to entire state.

City of Norfolk is aware of this
Norfolk Police are aware of this.

Over last couple years they have harrassed, detained, and even unlawfully arrested people open carrying handgun in city of Norfolk.

Now depsite what anyone thinks about open carry we are a country of law. If you think the law is wrong you change it. The police should not subject their personal opinions as proxy for legislature.

Long story short City of Norfolk has been sued now about a dozen times. Total damages are reaching $1 million plus legal fees, plus cost of City to defend.

Last lawsuit required Norfolk Police Dept to conduct 100% training of laws in state of VA on open carry at substantial cost to taxpayers.

BTW this is at a time when the City & Police Dept is facing budget shortfalls. Finally city if comming around. Couple years and million dollars wasted later.

Likely it will take TSA losing millions in lawsuits, people being terminated, inquiries from Congress on all this wasted money to harrass citizens w/ no productive benefit and couple years before it changes.


We either live in a police state or LEO obey the rule of law those are the only two options.

[tuckessee]

93. What kind of insulated little world do you live in?

In the world of collectibles & antiques much of the business is done at shows & conventions which people come from all over the world to attend.

It's not uncommon for people to travel with tens of thousands of dollars worth of cash to and from shows.

I knew one dude, "Mr. Mint", who adverstised he always carried a million dollars cash (truth is, he usually only had 300,000-500,000 at any given time physically on him).

Many farmers & ranchers I know routinely carry several thousand dollars cash when going to estate & farm machinery auctions.

Flea market pickers always carry oodles of cash.

The bottom line is - no one likes to accept out-of-state (or even out-of-country!) personal checks from total strangers. That's where cash is king.

To say that carrying cash (especially a paltry sum like in the OP) is an indication of illegal activity is ignorance of a grand and dangerous scale.

I know lots of people who pack lots of jack and not a single one of them is engaged in any illegal activity.

[MadHound]

122. You got anything to back that up that assertion

I've walked around before with several thousand dollars on me for perfectly innocent reasons. The notion that somebody walking around with lots of cash is somehow a criminal is a notion born of the drug war and is more of a ruse for the DEA and police to get ahold of that cash more than anything else. Hell, I've seen people get hassled for walking around with a couple of hundred.

[Richard Steele]

128. Sheer codswollop.

nm

[Lorien]

141. You watch way too much TV

this is why the country is in the mess it's in; people just follow along and think that something is "normal" and "OK' if someone in authority does it. Since when is a few thousand dollars a huge amount of cash?? If you have a credit card with a 24k limit on you, should you be arrested for that? Is it illegal for "non-elites" to have cash with them in your view? If the guy was a Wall Street broker would you find your outrage in this case?

His rights were violated, and none of us should put up with such crap from the TSA.

[spanone]

171. bwahahaha....cash = crime? usually drugs? bwahahahahaa

[walldude]

186. LMAO... $4700 bucks, must have been some shitty drugs

So tell me what is the amount you should be allowed to carry? If 4700 is too much and you think a person should be detained for that amount then where do you draw the line? Because honestly $4700 bucks is barely enough for a pound of weed these days...

[winyanstaz]

195. It is not a crime to carry cash..or to refuse to use the banks.

It also should not be a crime to carry over ten grand...if its your money..its your money dang it.
It is not "evidence" of a dang thing..except that you have some money.
Rich men also carry large amounts of cash at times..just because they dang well want to.
Couples carry cash they have saved to go play with on vacations to vegas, etc.
All this is just more fascism. More mind control for the masses. More Big Brother.
Papers please?

[a la izquierda]

196. My husband was a tour manager for

several successful punk bands. He and another manager were detained for 6 hours because they both had $10K on them, to make deposits. My husband routinely flew with that much cash, or more. Not illegal, but even though they called ahead and spoke to TSA people, they still got held up.

[derby378]

2. Yet another reason we need to disband the TSA

All these glorified mall cops need to go find themselves some real work.

[ixion]

4. TSA, DHS... all these fascist agencies need to be disbanded...

and our republic returned to us.

[lib2DaBone]

5. The TSA is a monster that grows larger daily.....

it feeds on large doses of taxpayer money... it is in constant search of more power, more control and more authority.


Private fliers, small airports frustrated by safety proposals

http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/business/articles/2009/03/19/20090319biz-smallairport0319.html

[MADem]

7. Wow, FOX NEWS, too. Talk about "Left is right, up is down!"

Who really thinks that Fox News, say, four years ago, would have broadcast this? Or if they had so done, they would have been on the side of the "little guy?"

Four years ago they would have called this guy a "terrist"...now he's a "courageous and persistent lover of liberty."

As an aside, so THAT's where that asswipe John Stossel ended up!!!

[Blue_Tires]

120. Fox only gets in a tizzy when one of 'their people' get hassled

i see the detainee was a paultard...

[MADem]

168. I think this guy would have, despite his RP affiliation, gotten the "Sit down and SHUT UP" treatment

from Fox four years ago.

But now, TSA is "owned" by Obama, so they don't love it anymore.

[sui generis]

12. the cutoff is 10K, and if he wasn't required to declare it

the TSA needs to get their collective dick knocked in the dirt.

[mainer]

176. I think that cut-off only applies to international flights

(because of suspicion of tax evasion). I've never heard there was any cut-off as to how much cash you can carry on a domestic flight.

[14thColony]

184. Yes, it's only for international travel

and $10k isn't even a cut-off. It's just the limit that can be carried undeclared. Over that amount must be declared on CBP Declaration Form 6059B (the landing card), but can still be carried.

[sui generis]

194. good thing we live in America, land of the free

The TSA needs to be gobsmacked - they're clueless, they've never once found evidence that someone was going to blow up a plane using lipstick, a condom wrapper and a tube of toothpaste, and the deal with the cash is literally just an excuse to confiscate.

They're shocked that anyone would dare to fight back after threatening to sic the DEA on them. This is bullying - plain and simple.

[lib2DaBone]

13. TSA Inspector Damages 9 American Eagle Aircraft....tax dollars at work..

http://www.abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=5613502&page=1

TSA Snafu Grounds Nine Planes at O'Hare Field


(snip)

Nine American Eagle airplanes were grounded Tuesday after a TSA inspector, conducting an overnight security check, used sensitive instrument probes to climb onto the parked aircraft at Chicago's O'Hare Airport, aviation sources tell ABCNews.com.

The TSA agent, as part of spot inspection of aircraft security, climbed onto the parked aircraft using control sensors mounted on the fuselage as handholds, according to a TSA official in Chicago, Elio Montenegro.


At least forty regional commuter flights were delayed throughout the day, according to American Airlines. "We think it's an unfortunate situation," American airlines spokesperson Mary Frances Fagen told ABCNews.com.

[Wickerman]

14. $4,700 is not a lot money

in the large scheme of things. There are myriad of legal reasons why one might carry that much from city to city.

It will buy you a middling used car.

It will buy you a top of the line bicycle.

It will pay for your daughter's Spring semester at a state uni.

It won't buy you a shitload of drugs.

It won't fund a terrorist cell for more than a day or two.

:shrug:

These guys are a menace.

[Pacifist Patriot]

84. And carrying it with you is probably safer than investing it these days.

I agree with you. It really isn't all that alarming an amount of cash. I don't personally have it to take on my next flight, but there are oodles of perfectly legal reasons why someone else could have.

[baldguy]

17. Its not an unreasonable question why he's got thousands of dollars in cash on him.

The amount wasn't the issue - his suspicious behavior was.

[seabeyond]

23. cause i want to carry 4700 is as much a reasonable answer. question asked, question answered

a person does not have to have a reason for wanting to carry 47 hundred. they dont have to have a reason that makes sense, or is acceptable or allowable to any of us....

how cowardly and fearful a nation and people we are

[baldguy]

100. see #98

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=5406944&mesg_id=5407773

[seabeyond]

104. only the coward, the fearful, the weak would support ths. n/t

[Mother Of Four]

25. Not suspicious at all.

When you require your rights given to you by any detaining officer, that isn't suspicious.

He had his drivers license right there, and was co-operative with his personal information.

They had his name, his address, his birth date. All they had to do was run him through NCIC.

If he was clean, good to go have a nice day sir sorry for the mixup.

If he had any history, then they could ask a few more questions. What you don't do is herd someone to a room, not even let him know if he's being detained UNTIL you attempt to move him to another area. 4700 dollars? PLEASE. He's traveling.

He was asking for his rights to be given to him, and I applaud him for doing so.

[baldguy]

50. There is a history - people who commit crimes usually behave in a particular way.

If they found a nickel in his pocket and asked him where he got it, and he said "I bought a candy bar from the vending machine down the hall. That was the change." Not suspicious. If he said, "It's none of your business. I want my lawyer. Am I being charged with a crime? How many nickels do you have in your pocket?" VERY suspicious. See the difference?

If you behave in the same way as a criminal - evading reasonable questions from police officers, questioning their authority, being generally disrespectful - then you will be considered suspicious and the officer with investigate further. THAT'S HIS JOB. How many times are notorious fugitives caught from something small & inconsequential? Tim McVeigh was pulled over for having no plates on his car. Should the cop have just given him a ticket & let him be on his way? Or not pulled him over at all?

If a cop asks you a question, your automatic assumption should not be that he's out to "get" you. He doesn't care about you, he cares about catching criminals. If you don't want to be considered suspicious, don't act suspiciously. The cop will ask you questions, and he isn't required to answer ANY of your questions. They're only required to inform you of your rights when they place you under arrest. There was no arrest. You'll note THE GUY WAS ALLOWED TO GO ON HIS WAY WITHOUT MISSING HIS FLIGHT. Hell, I've missed flights because the ticket agent couldn't get my name spelled right. That doesn't mean there's a conspiracy against me - just that my name is difficult to spell.

[Tesha]

73. How awful of him to insist on his (alleged) rights!

How dare he, huh?

Maybe if more of us insisted on our rights,
we'd still have them!

Tesha

[baldguy]

98. He has the right to carry any amount of cash he wants.

If he wants to fly, the airline & TSA has the right to question him about it. He does not have the right to fly, and if he wants to act like a criminal - even if there's no actual crime - they aren't required to allow him to.

But, if you actually watched the video you would've seen he did his foolish act, they investigated, and they LET HIM GO. The TSA did their job, and he is still free to be an asshole.

[seabeyond]

102. i am soooo afraid of the big bad terrorist..... lock down the airports.

as soon as one walks in, strip down, get felt up.... and proceed wettin self all the way to airplane. oh so sad. so so sad. i cannot believe we have grown adults that believe this. we do. i know. i talk to my big bad testosterone driven repug fox news watchin father about how afraid he is, .... at those airports.

i really really do not understand the person that can cow to another. i dont know how one does that.

[Tesha]

185. Please quote me the section of *ANY* law that gives the TSA the right to question him. (NT)

[Mother Of Four]

80. Uhm-

Ok, I had this whole response typed out for you then I realized that it's really not worth my time to explain it.

Do some research on TSA screeners before you get your panties in a twist.



http://www.usatoday.com/travel/flights/2008-06-15-tsa-badges_N.htm


Quote:

WASHINGTON — Screeners at the nation's airport checkpoints are going to start wearing police-style badges — but real officers aren't too happy about it.
Some sworn officers fear airline passengers will mistake screeners for law-enforcement officials with arrest powers.


Skip to---

Airport screeners will get badges after finishing a two-day training program covering issues related to badges as well as how to talk to passengers in a calming manner. Unlike police, who often are required to carry their badges while off-duty, screeners will be barred from wearing them when they are not working, TSA Deputy Administrator Gale Rossides said.

"We coupled the badges with the communications training to make it clear to our officers that they're there to facilitate our passengers," Rossides said. She said the TSA has no interest in giving screeners law-enforcement power.

End quote

:wow: A WHOLE two days training?

[baldguy]

90. Did you even watch the video?

These weren't the airline screeners he was talking to. He didn't cooperate with them, so they let the TSA agents deal with him. The screeners considered him to be suspicious, the TSA agents did not so they let him on his way.

Again - If he wasn't acting flaky, he wouldn't have had any problems. Ron Paul attracts & encourages flaky people.

[Mother Of Four]

138. First of all-

The cutoff amount is 10k

Secondly
Listen to the FULL recording. http://www.dailynewscaster.com/2009/04/02/audio-full-version-steve-bierfeldt-detained-and-questioned-by-st-louis-tsa/

at -22.30 the interviewer states that "you may not be legally required to tell me that but you will be legally required to tell the police officer who's going to talk to you"

In other words, he wasn't an officer. At the point in time he was detained and asked that the first time, he did NOT have a legal requirement to answer the TSA Screener.

Officer Shelton then comes into the room and explains the situation to him, asks for his ID and he presents it. Officer Shelton runs him through NCIC, Asks where he's headed...he responds with DC. Officer Shelton asks for his boarding pass, he presents it. Dispatch comes back with a clean history. Instead of responding with a yes or no on if he's legally bound to respond, Officer Shelton persists in asking where the money is from.

He asks if he lives in St Louis, and it's noted he has Va plates. The TSA screener keeps piping up and Officer Shelton states that the detainee is refusing to answer ANY questions. Which is dishonest, as he was willing to answer if they told him it was a legal requirement. At this point in time he was also answering any relevant questions about his person. It is his RIGHT to ask if he's required to answer, and it is their obligation to respond clearly. At this point it was the screener, and 1-2 officer in the room.

At -11:28 he was told "You don't have to understand the law, just answer the question."

Steve Bierfeldt persists in asking for his rights to be explained to him, at no time were his rights read to him or any answer given to if he was legally bound to respond.

There is some commotion and it's not clear if they stay in or leave the room at roughly -8:00, shortly after they find that he works for the campaign. "If I'm required to answer questions sir, I'm happy to answer questions."

Still at no time did they tell him yes or no if he was required to answer by law.

At - 6:50 The FBI agent comes in, and states "You detained him because of a metal box?" The FBI agent told him yes he had to answer, he answered. Officer Shelton became agitated and then the FBI agent stated he was free to go.

The SCREENER pops up and says that he's not comfortable in letting him go. Officer Shelton asks for a contact number, Steve Bierfeldt asks if he's required to give it- Officer Shelton refuses to say Yes or No and persists in asking again...Steve Bierfeldt states he's not comfortable giving a contact number and the issue isn't pursued.

"Am I free to go sir?" Yes.

SO yes, I did listen to the entire thing. And SB was respectful the entire time, at no time was he confrontational- and at no time did he try to disguise his identity.
The officer and the screener were just ticked off because he wanted his rights, and I STILL applaud him for doing so.


Oh, and at the Lambert-St. Louis International Airport (Which I'm assuming is the airport) the police and the TSA are two different entities. http://www.flystl.com/ Click the "Security" tab.

[Statistical]

150. There is no legal def of "flaky".

Are you even aware that police (or govt agent) must have REASONABLE SUSPICION.

Not just any suspicion but one found to be reasonable by the courts to detain someone.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_suspicion

What did he do prior to his detainment that meets the criteria for reasonable suspicion.

If it is nothing than he was unlawfully detained. Period.

[liberalhistorian]

190. So when I got agitated a few years ago when they almost

ruined my five thousand dollar hearing aids during inspection, would that also have been "suspicious" behavior? Please, what horse puckey. "Suspicious" behavior is whatever the cops feel like saying it is and often has nothing to do with reality. He had the right to be carrying the cash without being hassled about it, and he had the right to refuse to answer questions about it.

[BeFree]

29. Hey, baldguy

Hold it right there! We are the authority figures here and you look suspicious.

Come over here and stand still. You say you don't have the time? Well, son, if you continue to object you will have all the time in the world as you'll be sitting in jail.

We have reasonable questions as to your appearance and if you don't like it, well tough shit. We are the authorities, so bend over.

[baldguy]

94. I'm sure you can supply documentation from Skinner, EarlG & Elad granting that authority?

Unlike you, there was no question about the authority of the TSA agents to behave as they did.

Unless you question the authority of the federal govt itself?

[seabeyond]

99. constitutional rights.... anyone. cause it is government doesnt mean a free for all on their part

are you for real.

govt

they can do whatever. gonna question them.... not in your handbook, oh no. just put hands up, eyes down, tail between legs

[baldguy]

107. How you behave depends on what you want.

If you want to take a Constitutional stand in an airport TSA office, don't expect to get on the plane in time.

You'll note the guy got on his plane.

[seabeyond]

109. don't expect to get on the plane in time. .... cause of people like you and the others that support

the demand to cow, instead of the right to not be treated like a criminal

[baldguy]

115. They don't let cows on commercial flights.

I wish they didn't let assholes on either. But unfortunately it's not a crime to be an asshole.

[seabeyond]

121. but cowards. now cowards are ushered thru. little sheep... quietly walking along the line

dont dare, dont dare step off the line.... then, you are suspect and must submit to interrogation, or.... you are an ?asshole?

bhaaaa, baaaaaa

[BeFree]

117. Question the feds?

Huh? What? No, not me man. I trust the feds. The feds are my friends. Bushco can do no wrong, because they are, eh, were the feds.

Authority is always right and true and correct. Just like king George who, if our forefodders hadn't questioned, would still be king!
~~~~~~~~~~~~


Grow some hair!!

[seabeyond]

124. The feds are my friends.... ya

and if you dont think that, you are "suspicious".

[BeFree]

129. Exactly

And if you are suspicious, we need to interrogate you. Why? Because we can, that's why. We be authority!

[seabeyond]

131. and a whole bunch of really cowardly people willing to give up all THeir rights

will back them up......

lol lol

be free
lol
peaCE

[Statistical]

114. What suspicious behavior?

1) Doing something lawful (carrying money)
2) Not answering interrogation by government as protected by Constitution and Miranda?
3) Not accepting that the govt does not have right to detain citizens at will for a "non-crime"?

Which one exactly was the suspicious act?

You are aware you are NOT required to talk to the police or any other agent of the govt. Period.
You can not lawfully be detained because of a failure to assist in the govt collecting evdience against you for any actual or imaginary crime.

[OregonBlue]

20. Limit is $10,000 and that's for leaving the country. This was a domestic flight. It none of their

business what he's doing with the money. It's not illegal to carry cash.

[Coyote_Bandit]

28. $10,000 is also the limit

as to whether or not banks are required to report cash transactions.

I routinely carry several thousand dollars in cash when I travel. I have a trip planned this summer. The hotel tab alone will easily top a thousand dollars. Add to that parking, meals, events, activities and shopping for six - including both minors and seniors who do not have bank accounts or credit cards. Fortunately I will not have to deal with the TSA. We're putting the kids and the seniors on a plane and driving to meet them. And if some fucking cowboy cop stops me for a traffic violation I will not consent to a vehicle search. I will sit on the side of the damn road as long as it takes for the damn drug dog to arrive. Yes, I know someone (a young baby faced small statured attorney driving a high dollar vehicle who undoubtedly was stopped because he fit a profile) who did just that only to learn that the cop who stopped him was ***videotaped*** planting drug evidence in a similar traffic stop just two days later.

TSA was out of line. Possession of $4700 in and of itself should not be presumed to be an indicator of criminal activity.

[OregonBlue]

132. I also travel for business frequently out of the country. Last trip a TSA official was stationed

just outside the plane as we boarded and asked how much cash we had. Each had only $2000 in cash and $2000 in traveler's checks. He wanted to know where we were going, how long we would be gone and what we were going to do with the money. I wanted to tell him to F--k off but answered the questions and was ALLOWED to board. Big Brother is HERE!!

It's not illegal therefore, it's none of their business.

[seabeyond]

133. this is what pisses me off. you do it, to get on the plane and do what you gotta do. and they KNOW

they are fuckin with your rights, doing wrong.... and they will get away with it casue the majority cannot afford to stand up for their rights. and then look at those on this board that just bow down'

knowingly letting their rights being shredded.


i am glad you at least felt like say

fuck you

to the tsa

[Coyote_Bandit]

155. TSA is too damn inconsistent in enforcing the rules

I've been permitted to board even though I completely failed to remove cosmetic, toiletries and liquids from my carry-on. Wasn't even questioned about it. Had a lengthy layover during which time I left the secure area of the airport. The oversight was caught and I was required to trash some cosmetics and such before being permitted to re-enter the secure area and proceed on my trip.

On another occasion both me and my carry-on were submitted to a full search because the carry on contained a package of 4 rechargeable AA batteries. Only time that has ever happened - and I always carry spare batteries for the digital camera.

I will fly if there are no other reasonable and viable option. Otherwise I'll drive. From my little spot here in the middle of the country, it is often both cheaper and quicker to drive.

Our travel choices for that summer trip (to a metropolitan area that hosts a hub airport):
(1) Drive to our destination - about 6 hours according to Mapquest;
(2) Local airport nonstop one hour flight to our destination at a cost of over $600 each way per person before taxes and fees;
(3) Local airport flight to a hub with a terminal and plane change and a lengthy layover before flying to our destination - a process that takes more time than that required to drive; or
(4) Drive two hours to a different out of the way airport, take a nonstop hour and a half flight to our destination at a cost of $75 each way per person (same fucking carrier that charges over $600 for the one hour flight to the same destination on the same model plane).

Assuming we all drove we could easily save enough in airfare and rental car fees to pay for the hotel and some of the meal expenses. Makes it easy to justify not dealing with the intrusions of the TSA and the foolish logistics of the airlines.

[Mari333]

26. my brother worked for the TSA

he said to me once "dont believe for one second that you are safe because of the TSA!"

[seabeyond]

30. i dont. i wouldnt, couldnt be so foolish to believe they make us safe.

as a matter of fact, one step further, i feel less safe with them, and all the many people willing to give up all rules and rights to these people to have total power and control, out of fear... of???? who the fuck knows.

[rucky]

163. but I do believe it.

I'm also allergic to hair gel, so...

[truebrit71]

37. I'll carry as much cash as I chose fuck you very much...

...enjoy your short career at the Totally Stupid Agency...:eyes:

[Stevenmarc]

39. $4,700 buys a lot of lap dances and those TSA agents sounded like they needed it.

[Occam Bandage]

46. There's no security threat. They had reason to suspect he might be a drug dealer,

the reason being $4700 in cash. His treatment was an unfortunate but predictable refusal to answer questions and standoffish attitude. The TSA are people just trying to get through their shitty jobs.

[hlthe2b]

59. which is beyond the scope of their authority and duties...

If they had reason to believe this man had drugs, they should have called local police.

[Occam Bandage]

68. I don't believe it is.

Do you have any case law finding that the TSA is not allowed to temporarily detain people for questioning on suspicion of criminal activity?

[hlthe2b]

71. If you read the congressional record that lays out the authorities

for creating TSA, I'm sure you'll have your eyes open. It is public record. You want to argue I'm wrong? Do the research.

[Occam Bandage]

74. "Do the research" is often shorthand for "I have no fucking clue." nt

[hlthe2b]

76. No, it is putting the oneness for taking one's time in YOUR lap

It is not my responsibility to spend hours educating you or anyone else.

Like your colleague upstream, who won't even read through the entire thread. Sorry, but THAT is the cop out.

[Occam Bandage]

83. And it isn't my responsibility to educate you, either. I think the TSA

has the right to detain for questioning on suspicion of the commission of crimes, specifically crimes related to drug transport. If you have a cite for your belief, I'll happily read it, but I'm not going to go rooting through hundreds of pages of unrelated Congressional hearings because some anonymous DUer who can't spell "onus" thinks there's probably something useful in there, and I'm not going to demand you do that to disprove my belief, either.

[hlthe2b]

87. TSA are not authorized as subsitute for law enforcement.

Their mandate is narrowly defined around safety. That is the bottom line.


As Motheroffour points out upstream:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=5406944&mesg_id=5407592

[seabeyond]

92. merely having cash cannot make you a suspect any more than having a third eye. n/t

[Statistical]

88. No citizen is required to answer unlawful questions and accept "routine" detainment.

Hopefully he gets a good civil rights lawyer. Collect nice multi-million dollar settlement and never needs to sell T-shirts or carry cash again.

Once again what is the crime?
What is the threat to society or self?

In the absence of reasonable suspicion (and carry $$$ is not that), or threat to society LEO have no authority to detain a citizen without a warrant. Period.

If a cop did this he would be fired and facing civil rights lawsuit but since it is the TSA it is "ok"?

Citizens are not obligated to assist the govt with creating a case against them and not assisting is not a crime in itself.

You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to an attorney present during questioning. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you. Do you understand these rights?

[Gormy Cuss]

91. He didn't refuse to answer any questions. He asked if he was legally required to answer them

and never got an answer to that. He was being cooperative -- he answered the questions necessary for identification and responded politely to every question --they just didn't like his answers. A "standoffish attitude" isn't an excuse for their 25 minutes of calling him childish and implying that someone carrying more than $50 in cash was suspicious.

[MiniMe]

51. Hmmm, the guy was a Ron Paul campaign worker, and worked for the campaign

And what was Stossal doing on Faux News?

[Vinca]

77. Flying with cash is a crime?????

[baldguy]

112. He wasn't charged with any crime.

They were just asking him questions because he was acting suspicious. Once they realized he was a harmless Paulite, they let him catch his flight - in spite of the fact that he was being an asshole.

The TSA was doing their normal job.

[Statistical]

119. We was DETAINED despite meeting NO requirement for reasonable suspicion.

Arrest is the govt detaining you. Period.

If a Police officer asks you to wait the response should be:
"Am I under arrest officer. If so what crime?"

If they state you are not under arrest you should leave:
"Officer since I am not under arrest I am exercising my right to leave. The govt has no authority to detain citizens who are not commiting a cime and are not a danger to themselves or anyone else".

If they prevent you from leaving that is a false arrest. Period.

TSA violated that mans civil rights. He was detained, interrogated, not given access to counsel, and not notified of the crime he was detained for.

Lawsuit.

[galileoreloaded]

96. Actually the guy was a Campaign for Liberty Staffer. A Paul-bot.

Should this change our opinion of how he was treated??

http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/apr/06/tsa-detains-official-from-ron-paul-group/

[rcrush]

160. Why would it?

If you work for Ron Paul then you are a terrorist?

[leftofthedial]

101. He could inflict nasty paper cuts on the flight crew!

Thank Gawdjeezis that the TSA is on the job!

[sarcasmo]

103. I wouldn't carry that much cash, but I mean this is getting out of control.

What if he wanted to hit the casino boat?

[MilesColtrane]

106. Just wait until the economic chickens come home to roost.

You'll have to carry $4,700 around just to buy a Pepsi and a bag of chips at the terminal lounge.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

123. Much Ado About Nothing. In Fact, The TSA Did Its Job Appropriately.

It was the man himself who acted like a moron, but the TSA appeared to have done their part well. But as always, those with closed minds could always warp it into a mountain from a mole hill and find reason to spew their falsely righteous outrage.

[seabeyond]

126. and the coward will always "spew their falsely righteous outrage" defending the oppressor.

to keep them safe. cause they are so very afraid.

maaaaa mmmmma

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

140. If Only You Realized How Silly You Look.

Your response was asinine.

[seabeyond]

143. it is the difference between the people willing to keep the authority honest.... cause we arent

fuckin afraid to and the cowards that allow them to abuse, to the point of where we are today cause they are so afraid of that illusional threat.

[baldguy]

135. Bingo.

[Zodiak]

127. This thread is an example why authoritarians and anti-authoritarians will never get along

They don't even speak the same language.

[baldguy]

134. No, the paulites aren't anti-authoritarians - they're whiners.

They think the whole world revolves around them and the nefarious MIB agents are OUT TO GET THEM!!!!!! Oh, my! Oh, no! The New World Order! The Illuminati! THE INTERNATIONAL BANKERS CONSPIRACY!!!!!

They don't live in the real world & can't get over the fact that the govt really doesn't care about them or what they do. So they act like assholes to draw attention to themselves.

[seabeyond]

137. instead you prefer to blindly follow without question. rollin eyes.... n/t

[BeFree]

139. Gawd

The guy stands up for his rights and you call him a whiner?

We are doomed to serfdom with that mentality.

[Statistical]

153. So are you ok w/ civil rights being trampled.... OR

just the civil rights of people you disagree with politically being trampled?

It shouldn't matter if the guy was a Ron Paul support, Obama child, a fundie, a cultist, a pedophile, a priset, a communist, or a terrorist.

The POINT is at the time of illegal detainment they didn't know who he was.

He could have been YOU!

[baldguy]

173. Tell you what.

Next time you're driving along, minding your own business, and come upon one of those police checkpoints - you know, checking licenses, seat belts & inspections - you just go ahead & blow right through it. After all, everyone knows that those checkpoints are unconstitutional. I'm sure Ron Paul will pony up the cash to bail you out of jail.

Tell us how that works out, will you?

[Statistical]

182. STRAWMAN ALERT.... STRAWMAN ALERT.....

One a checkpoint isn't what he tried to avoid.
He went through the checkpoint.
He allowed himself to be scanned, showed ID, opened his bags, allowed them to be xrayed.

Your analogy is flawed. He accepted the checkpoint. If he jumped the TSA checkpoint we wouldn't be having this thread.

If I cop asked me to stay at a checkpoint for no reason despite complying w/ providing required ID I would ask very politely and calmly:
"Am I being detained? If not I will be leaving. If I am being detained I wish to know reasons for my detainment."

If they force me to stay w/o reasonable suspicion = unlawful detainment.
I will find me an good civil rights lawyer and retire 20 years early.

Just wonder what level of civil rights violation is acceptable to you:
1 hour unlawful detainment?
4 hours?
1 day?
1 week?
1 year?

Or by your logic would a small civil rights violation be ok just big ones are not ok. Like if govt said it is unlawful to pay Blacks 25% less but it is ok if you only pay them 10% less based on their race.

If the govt can unlawfully detain you for an hour they can do it for a day or a week, or however God Damn long they feel like doing it.

Giving unreasonable power to a totalitarian state is not a progressive idea, never has been and hopefully never will.

[baldguy]

187. Legally, the whole airport is a checkpoint.

Like it or not, once you voluntarily set foot on airport property you are in a controlled environment. In this controlled environment there are rules: you have no free speech, you have no freedom of movement, you have no freedom of assembly. If that's too much for you, you can leave. No body forces you to fly in an airplane.

If you decide not to leave you have to go through a security screening before you can get on a plane. That screening does not begin and end with one guy asking one question and everyone else ignoring what you do. Its a process that begins when you check in, continues with the x-rays & metal detectors, goes on through the gate and only ends when your plane actually takes off. At any time in this process you can be pulled aside for further questioning by security personnel. They may be from the TSA, or the airline, or the airport itself.

If you think thats too invasive, its your choice not to fly. Even if you believe that the laws that set up the TSA are wrong and unconstitutional, those laws still exist and you do not have the right to ignore them, nor should you have the expectation of being exempt from them. If you feel the need at any particular moment to challenge them, you should be prepared for the consequences.


Look, there are a lot of things to criticize the TSA for: its procedures, its effectiveness, its ham-fisted approach to civil rights, its over-the-top restrictions on non-threatening items and its total ignorance of real ones, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc.

THIS - one geeky guy being questioned about a ton of cash he has in his pocket, then being allowed to go on his way - ain't one of them. Every other real cop in a similar situation would have handled it exactly the same way.

[Statistical]

188. TSA authority isn't unlimited.

You would think after the last 8 years we would learn that handing unlimited authority to the govt because of fear is dangerous and stupid.

The TSA had no authority to detain him. His actions didn't meet the legal requirement of "reasonable suspicion". The TSA acts with no broader authority than any other govt agent.

Even if you accept that TSA is given some latitude to protect passengers in the name of safety from terror what danger did he posses to other passengers?

Was he going to burn the plane down w/ his cash.

You call him a geeky guy who failed to answer questions. What you fail to (or are so programmed by Bush that you don't want to) realize is THAT HE HAS NO OBLIGATION TO RESPOND TO ANY QUESTION. PERIOD.

That is his right. The TSA had no authority to detain someone who was lawful and clearly presented no danger to himself or anyone else.

I hope he sues because likely he will win.

I mistook your for a progressive I didn't realize you fell for that STATE KNOWS BEST, ALL CITIZENS SUBMIT TO THE ALL KNOWING STATE nonesense pushed by the previous President. My bad, won't happen again.

[baldguy]

192. Ok, when was he being detained?

He was never detained. He was never asked any intrusive questions. And - in spite of the fact that the TSA and the airline had no obligation to seat him & had no right to it - he didn't miss his flight.

Now, you go play in your childish libertarian paulite fantasy world - the rest of us real progressives will deal with reality.

[seabeyond]

136. not all of us can or know how to be sheep. we have got to be allowed our rights.... where

we know where we stand, cause we cannot put a tail between leg and will just set us up for abuse.

how am i intimidated, if i do not know how to be intimidated. if it does not enter my head to be intimidated.

i dont know how to wet myself, .... out of fear.... of these people

i will be the one to say, i dont have to tell you what the cash is for, where i got it. none of your business

why

cause i dont have to tell them what i am doing with it and where i got it.

and i believe in that and should be able to count on it

[noiretextatique]

142. damn right, seabeyond

when two cops in two cop cars pulled me over a few years ago for driving without my lights on, i told them point blank: this is racial profiling. there is no way in hell that the two of them would have pulled over a white woman driving a late-model luxury sedan for driving without lights, but it's "standard procedure" for a black woman. i called them out on their shit, and one of them acknowledged that it was overkill. the other, a rookie, kept trying to tell me where to stand, so i told him: do you think i am stupid enough to allow a car to hit me? if you are so concerned about my safety, why did you pull me over instead of using your loudspeaker to tell me to turn my lights on? i am going to stand right here in the street, in the light, so you don't mistake my cell phone for a gun...thank you very much.
this happened in oakland, ca where i could have easily been shot dead and nothing would have happened...the police could have claimed they were scared or whatever...like they always do.
i had just had ENOUGH, and i wasn't going to go along with the "standard procedure" that night...fuck that. i was OUTRAGED, as i should have been, and i let them know it.
they gave me a $450.00 ticket after detaining me for 15 minutes...for driving without lights, and for standing in the street.
i went to court and posted bail and set a trial date. the fucking COWARDS didn't bother to show up, and the judge dismissed the charges. the judge basically said the charges were bullshit and apologized for wasting my time.
if you don't stand up for yourself, authority will walk all over you. i'd rather die with courage than live like a coward.

[seabeyond]

144. the fucking COWARDS didn't bother to show up,.... cowards i tell you.

you go

it is people like you and me that these big ole tough cowards should be thanking. they blindly follow and cause there are those of us, and mainly women that just wont take the shit no more.... we at least try to make those in power stay honest.

they are cowards and i have had it with them all

[npk]

145. WTF. The man took all the monetary donations from Ron Paul's campaign

And tried to flee to South Dakota. Ron Paul must be livid.

[DevonRex]

154. Seems a bit early to decide that is the only reason he was detained.

So, once again put me in the wait-and-see category. I'll wait and see if this story is absolutely correct before coming to any conclusion.

[Uncle Joe]

161. Just another victim from the insanity created by the War Against Some Drugs, now cash is illegal.

This is immoral.

[KamaAina]

169. When cash is outlawed, only outlaws will have cash

:eyes:

[spanone]

170. maybe he was gonna bribe the pilot to fly into tall buildings????

[mainer]

177. So TSA is FORCING Americans to have credit cards?

If you're out of state, many businesses won't cash your personal checks. They'll only take credit cards or cash. TSA is essentially forcing all of us to carry plastic when we travel.

[mainer]

178. It is not against the law to demand your rights. ACLU should be on this.

The more I think about this, the more outraged I get.

[seabeyond]

183. me too. not against the law to demand your right.... say it loud

damn straight. i just continually get more and more mad.

i got in biggest fight with father other night over this shit. and his shrugging, well, if you arent doing anything wrong

i respect this man so. love him dearly. he is too old to be getting in fights with kids.... but still....

i cannot stand this cowardly, acceptance of forgoing our rights