Slashdot Mirror
ACLU Sues DHS Over Unlawful Searches and Detention
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."
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).
See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
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."
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.
My work here is dung.
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).)
I don't know. I used to work for someone who sold stuff at computer shows on the weekend. We would carry cash in a metal box. It is frequently known as a cashbox. It had a lock on the front and dividers in it to separate various denominations. I can easily see someone in the situation described transporting the money in a cahsbox (which could easily be described as a "metal box",
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
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."
On a related note, see
United States of America v. $124,700, in U.S. Currency, United States Court of Appeals for the Eight Circuit, No. 05-3295, August 18, 2006.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
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.
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 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
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.
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.