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."
... a Ron Paul staffer with cash? I thought they all carried gold bouillon.
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.
It's just take a number and they aren't finished defending the First Amendment yet.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
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.
You can't take the sky from me...
It also doesn't hurt that he was traveling in connection with a political campaign. That helps raise other issues directly to the court, such as 1. interfering with a business (so the densest conservative can understand it) 2. creating a chilling effect for those who wish to work on a political campaign (so the densest liberals can understand it) and 3. it was someone who can clearly prove where the money came from and where it was going (so the densest independent can understand it).
Based on the recent Supreme Court ruling concerning DNA, it seems you really have to get all the pieces together so that a judge with a particular political axe to grind won't just ignore their duties and pull the case in a wrongheaded direction.
So you would rather the ACLU divide their resources so they can spend even less time on all the 1st amendment cases to fight for the right to bear arms when there is already several organizations that devote time and money to 2nd amendment challenges?
Personally I think if you believe that's a good idea you're a fool. If you want to devote your money to second amendment challenges then send your money into one of the dozen or more organizations solely devoted to the 2nd amendment, like the NRA. It would be foolish for the ACLU to divide their limited resources to action on the 2nd when there are so many more challenges to the 1st, 4th,, 5th, 6th, 8th and 14th that they need to devote money to and there are so many other organizations whose sole focus is the 2nd. There are very few organizations that spend as much effort on 1st let alone even care about the others. Only a fool would hate the ACLU for being pragmatic about distribution of their limited funds to challenges where they are the only organization working on them.
Your statement about the ACLU working on 2nd amendment challenges is as silly as someone asking the NRA to work on 1st amendment issues.
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."
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).
The ACLU is horribly ideological.
Ever see them helping support 2nd Amendment rights?
For the ACLU, some rights are more equal than others.
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.
If the ACLU's position was strictly, "We feel there already is a capable organisation defending this right, please see the NRA" then I'm sure the OP wouldn't have an objection. It's when they actively post a non-liberty response to the amendment that the OP is complaining about. They've chose a very restrictive view of this liberty ("restrictive" == "opposite of liberty"), and that's what the OP is complaining about.
Further, they even post that, "in [their] view, neither the possession of guns nor the regulation of guns raises a civil liberties issue." The OP contends that this actually is a civil liberties issue, so takes offense that the ACLU would narrowly define civil liberties to just the ones they like - which seems to be exactly the opposite of what they purport to defend. It's the American Civil Liberties Union, damnit, not the American Civil Liberties That We Like Union.
At least, that's what I think the OP meant.
I'd rather my plane not blow up or get hi-jacked. If that means someone needs to get searched then so be it. Planes are private property - if you don't like it don't fly on it. You can always drive to your destination, or take a boat ride.
Yes...they are private property. So WTF is the federal government doing getting their noses involved?
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.
This is just a simple case of some little dick trying to be a big dick and then cry about it when he got called.
Story time! You are on your way to Toronto to attend your cousin's wedding. But as you get into the airport, you realize you have no cash and haven't bought a wedding present yet! So you're not sure if the ATMs in Canada work for your bank and you approach an ATM. You're in a hurry to catch your flight which puts you in Toronto just to catch the wedding and in your haste, you accidentally hit an extra zero after punching in $500 and then hit enter. You're now holding $5,000 in nonconsecutive hundreds (this actually happened to my friend once).
Ok, you're not putting these in your luggage or jacket so you put them on your person and they make a noticeable bulge in the front pocket of your shirt but you don't want to lose them.
Guard notices the bulge as you walk through and asks you what's in your front shirt pocket. You look nervous and start to tell him a contrived story about being in a rush and having $5,000 on you--which is, of course, a hilarious mistake. TSA agent doesn't buy it and wants to know what it's really for. Guy wants to know who you work for. Sad thing is you were just laid off by Best Buy and the severance package of $7,000 is the only way that transaction to your checking account went through. So you tell him you're an unemployed guy going to Toronto with $5,000.
The TSA agent informs you they just arrested a guy with a bunch of cocaine on him in the airport and he's pretty sure you were his contact to make the deal and bring it over to Canada. You don't have any police record and were cleared to fly when you got your ticket but that doesn't matter. After missing the wedding and a night in jail, they can't make it stick and let you go.
You're a victim of better safe than sorry. When--guess what--it's not illegal for you to walk around with $5,000 cash on you.
Nice story, huh? Be a shame if it happened to you. But I'm sure I just have an overactive imagination and we all have nothing to worry about.
My work here is dung.
"Bierfeldt recorded the audio of the entire incident with his iPhone."
Need to make a record of your Constitutional rights being violated?
There's an app for that.
Interesting, because because 2001, the last hijacking of a US plain was 14 years ago (1994). That was a FedEx employee hijacking a FedEx cargo plane, so TSA/DHS wouldn't do shit to help that.
Before that, it was another 8 years (1986), and that didn't originate in the US.
So please, stop acting like plane hijackings/bombings are even nearly a threat to everyday people. You should spend your time worrying about how to protect yourself from lightning strikes, you are far more likely to be struck by lightning (on the ground, every day) than have your plane hijacked.