ACLU Sues DHS Over Unlawful Searches and Detention 460
gavron writes "The ACLU has filed suit against DHS to stop the TSA from conducting illegal searches and detention. In the case at hand, TSA detained a Ron Paul staffer who was carrying $4,300 in cash in a metal box. The suit seeks to focus TSA searches on things having to do with increasing security on aircraft, instead of their current practice of 4th-amendment-violating searches, such as those of laptops, iPods, etc."
Re:What took them so long? (Score:5, Informative)
Yeah, because the ACLU is only about taking on cases of important people. Even though I don't agree with all of their positions, they are a very effective organization and have helped take down many unjust laws.
(and thank you again, Slashdot, for the five minute wait between posts).
Re:Choice of cases? (Score:3, Informative)
I know this is slashdot, but RTFA for details of how this guy was harassed. He was not kindly told to "come here an open it up for us".
Re:What took them so long? (Score:5, Informative)
Oh, it had to happen to someone important and/or with money.
Actually, it took someone with evidence; FTFA: "Bierfeldt recorded the audio of the entire incident with his iPhone."
Re:Why, oh why. (Score:2, Informative)
Finally, why didn't he just convert the cash to a money order or cashiers check?
Well the article states that he was returning from a Campaign for Liberty event with the ticket sales, concessions, etc. so maybe he didn't have time to convert it to anything else.
Re:What took them so long? (Score:5, Informative)
Oh, it had to happen to someone important and/or with money.
More like it happened to someone who knew they didn't have to answer a single question from some inexperienced TSA "officials." When he told them he didn't have to tell them why he had the money the Agent allegedly replied, "Well I'll tell you what. . . . You might not be legally required to tell me that but you will be legally required to tell the police officer who will come talk to you. I'm just trying to ask some questions to figure out what all this is about so I can get you on your plane. But you want to play smart ass, and I'm not going to play your f---ing game." Here's the transcript from his following detention (note that this is the ACLU's hosted complaint):
Agent: Is there a reason you're not answering any questions
Bierfeldt: I'm not refusing to answer any
Agent: I want you to see it from my -- from what we're seeing, you come in with some money but you don't want to answer any questions about how much it is that's in your possession.
Bierfeldt: I don't know.
Agent: Is it a secret why you have the money or something?
Bierfeldt: I don't know the exact amount â" you're asking where my employment is, I'm simply asking whether I'm legally required to answer
Agent: Well may I ask, the question is, why do you have this money? That's the question, that's the major question.
Bierfeldt: Yes sir, and I'm asking whether I'm legally required to answer that question.
Agent: Answer that question first, why do you have this money?
Bierfeldt: Am I legally required to answer that question?
Agent: So you refuse to answer that question?
Bierfeldt: No sir, I'm not refusing.
Agent: Well you're not answering.
Bierfeldt: I'm simply asking my rights under the law.
Agent: I'm asking you a question and in return you're asking me a question. You're not answering it.
And then later:
Agent: Why do you have all this money? .
Bierfeldt: That's my, I asked you sir, am I required by law to answer the question.
Agent: I'm just asking you why you have $4700?
Bierfeldt: That's my question, I don't understand the law.
Agent: You want to talk to DEA about it? They'll probably ask you more questions.
Bierfeldt: If they can tell me if I'm required to answer by law the question, I'll answer the question. I'm just looking for a simple yes or no.
Agent: It's just a simple question. I just want to know why you have $4700 on you, that's not a usual thing. . .
Second Agent: He's refusing to answer any questions, he don't want to answer so, we [sic] gonna have to take him down to the station.
Agent: I mean yeah, that's suspicious.
Second Agent: DEA, FBI, and all those
Agent: Every one of them.
Second Agent: So we can do that.
Sounds pretty much how I'd react if you caught me in a really bad mood.
True: this all could have been avoided if the staffer had told them who he was working for and where the money came from. False: the staffer was required by law to divulge this information. I'm sure these guys are used to civilians rolling over for them everyday but if you ask me they're too used to being able to take your shit to another room and hold you there because they are bored.
$4,700 doesn't even require a CMIR (Score:4, Informative)
If he was carrying over $10,000 they could have reminded him of his legal obligation to file a CMIR. But he wasn't. Carrying $4,700 isn't a reportable event and is none of the TSA's business. (In case you don't know banking regulations: 31 CFR 103.23 requires that a CMIR be filed by anyone who transports, mails, ships or receives, or attempts, causes or attempts to cause the transportation, mailing, shipping or receiving of currency or monetary instruments in excess of $10,000, from or to a place outside the United States. The term ``monetary instruments'' includes currency and instruments such as negotiable instruments endorsed without restriction. See 31 CFR 103.11(k).)
Re:$4,700 doesn't even require a CMIR (Score:5, Informative)
If he was carrying over $10,000 they could have reminded him of his legal obligation to file a CMIR. (...) from or to a place outside the United States
It was a domestic flight.
Re:Hmmm (Score:5, Informative)
TSA people are not legally informed (Score:5, Informative)
Having spent time with the TSA, I can tell you first-hand that most TSA people are completely uninformed about their jobs, the law or just about anything they are doing. A TSA screener with half a brain wouldn't have done anything more than call in local law enforcement to perform any interrogations. There are standing instructions to inform law enforcement of anything including large quantities of cash. As to the performance of interrogations? Last time I was there, such things were never instructed. TSA screeners are not law enforcement.
The whole idea of "Department of Homeland Security" is born of a paranoid consolidation of power. It has done more to harm the efficiency of law enforcement and emergency services than it has done to help. The DHS should be dismantled and the pre 9-11 condition restored.
I am okay with government security screening, but only as far as their primary mission. If they do see anything else questionable, the ONLY proper action should be to inform actual law enforcement. "To observe and report."
United States of America v. $124,700 (Score:5, Informative)
On a related note, see
United States of America v. $124,700, in U.S. Currency [uscourts.gov], United States Court of Appeals for the Eight Circuit, No. 05-3295, August 18, 2006.
I-bonds or "forever" postage stamps (Score:3, Informative)
I-bonds and other inflation-protected securities are are the nearly-perfect hedge against inflation. If the government defaults on those we've got worse things to worry about than inflation.
The face value of "Forever stamps" go up with postage rates, which are supposed to track inflation. The downside is they aren't very convenient to trade and store.
Re:They haven't forgot about the 2nd Amendment (Score:1, Informative)
wrong about cashier's checks and money orders (Score:1, Informative)
The Federal Reserve Board's explanation http://www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/regcc/regcc.htm#determin/ [federalreserve.gov] of Regulation CC "Availability of Funds and Collection of Checks" is clear that funds availability is the same for U.S. Postal Service money orders and cashier's checks.
Furthermore, banks are permitted to withhold availability of funds from a deposit until the next business day regardless of whether the deposit was a money order, cashier's check *OR* cash. But banks can use additional excuses (esp. "reasonable cause to doubt the collectibility" what with the recent spate of cashier's check scams) to delay funds availability from either cashier's check deposits or money order deposits while they cannot delay funds availability from cash deposits beyond the business day after deposit.
Re:What took them so long? (Score:3, Informative)
The current airport security regime in the US is a creation of the federal government, not the airplane owners, so I'm not sure what relevance your comment that "planes are private property" has.
Re:It was for a seminar (Score:1, Informative)
HA HA HA HA HA! Ha ha ha. Heh. Ha ha hah ha ha ha hah!, heh, heh, heh. Hee hee hee. Ha ha ha. That was a good one! [wikipedia.org](take a look at the $850 high in 1980, inflation adjust and think about how much someone who bought a million dollars of gold then has today).
Re:What took them so long? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Why, oh why. (Score:3, Informative)
Re:What took them so long? (Score:5, Informative)
This kind of attitude is why our rights are slowly crumbling away. The Ron Paul staffer was not legally obligated to answer these questions. The notion that simply caving in and answering the questions anyway would have sped his passage through airport security has no bearing on any of this. He was clearly in the right and the TSA drones were in the wrong. He did nothing illegal and therefore should not have been held, searched, or subjected to questioning.
By giving in to the seemingly small intrusions on our civil liberties that happen on a daily basis, we are willingly giving up our rights. Unless we stand up for ourselves, even at the cost of possible inconvenience, the rights that we enjoy will eventually disappear.
Re:What took them so long? (Score:1, Informative)
Or you could join the NRA and actually support the 2nd. H&S is an anti-gun front group, supported by one of the Joyce Foundation offshoots. They're pro AWB, pro .50BMG ban, and anti-handgun. Sounds like a real 2nd Amendment supporter, no?
Personally, I just wish the ACLU would say "Yes, it's an individual right, yes it's important, but the NRA does a way better job so we'll leave it to them". They don't have to fight that fight, but acknowledging that it should be done would be good.
Re:Choice of cases? (Score:3, Informative)
The shoebomber was stopped by passengers while the plane was in the air.
Re:What took them so long? (Score:2, Informative)
Ever see them helping support 2nd Amendment rights?
For the ACLU, some rights are more equal than others.
Ever see someone in this country unable to buy a gun? In spite of all the crying over 2nd Amendment by the NRA, you can still go out and buy an assault rifle whenever you like. But somehow your fictional rights violation is more important to you than someone losing their job, being denied airplane travel, or being imprisoned. Way to have your priorities straight.
Re:What took them so long? (Score:4, Informative)
Some rights have more focused, specific advocacy groups which are in a better position to lobby for and defend those rights. If someone else can do a better job, why waste resources on the same thing when other rights don't have their own advocacy and lobbying group?
BULLSHIT!
District of Columbia v. Heller [findlaw.com] was decided 5-4.
How the HELL could a "civil rights" organization worth anything NOT have a position on whether or not the 2nd Amendment confers an individual or collective right. Hell, given that every other Amendment confers individual rights, one had to do some pretty serious logical shenanigans to come to any conclusion that the 2nd Amendment only confers collective rights and not individual rights.
And here's some of the logical shenanigans a certain ex-General Counsel of the ACLU agreed with in the District of Columbia v. Heller dissent:
The question presented by this case is not whether the Second Amendment protects a "collective right" or an "individual right." Surely it protects a right that can be enforced by individuals. But a conclusion that the Second Amendment protects an individual right does not tell us anything about the scope of that right.
That's a nice dance, dance, dance around that "individual right" question.
Then, this:
The Second Amendment was adopted to protect the right of the people of each of the several States to maintain a well-regulated militia.
That's even more dance, dance, dance BULLSHIT.
From the majority opinion:
1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2-53.
(a) The Amendment's prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause's text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2-22.
(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court's interpretation of the operative clause. The "militia" comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens' militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens' militia would be preserved. Pp. 22-28.
(c) The Court's interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28-30.
(d) The Second Amendment's drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30-32.
(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court's conclusion. Pp. 32-47.
Read those page counts:
FIFTY ONE FUCKING PAGES that utterly refute the completely unsupported and utter bullshit statement "The Second Amendment was adopted to protect the right of the people of
Re:What took them so long? (Score:2, Informative)
$10,000 is the limit for declaring currency at the border. Other than that, there isn't any limit to carrying cash (from a legal but not practical point ov view). http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview/id/389587.html [google.com]
Re:Master and Margarita (Score:5, Informative)
After missing the wedding and a night in jail, they can't make it stick and let you go
Less the $5000 they're permitted to steal from you thanks to highly unconstitutional Civil Forfeiture laws that the Supreme Court refuses to do anything about because the government stuck the word "civil" in the title and therefore it's not a criminal proceeding and they don't have to deal with any of that stupid due process bullshit.
Re:Choice of cases? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Choice of cases? (Score:3, Informative)
Al-Qaida has attacked in the continental US twice: once in 1993 and once in 2001. After 2001, we undertook a number of activities not involving DHS with the intent of crippling the organization (such as it is). Since it's 2009, we've had about the same freedom from al-Qaida attack here that we did in 2001.
I've seen no good evidence that DHS or the TSA is doing any good.
Re:liberals (Score:3, Informative)
In all seriousness, though: If you believe in liberty and small government you are called a "liberal" in Europe; in the US you are called a "libertarian" and the big-l "Liberal" term is reserved for the big-govt types...
"Liberal" is used in the US now to mean big government but it wasn't always. Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and other Founding Fathers of the USA were proponents of the liberalism of their tyme, which is now called Classical liberalism [wikipedia.org].
Falcon
Re:It was for a seminar (Score:3, Informative)
I know what you mean. The other day something remended me of another story on 60 minutes years ago about something called the "walking man" case which dealt with whether the cops could stop you and demand ID "just because". My Google-fu wasn't good enough to get past all the portable tape player links, but your reply goaded me into making an extra effort to force Google to my will and I came up with the name of the Supreme Court case from 1983, "Kolender v. Lawson". Thanks.