TSA Changes Its Rules, ACLU Lawsuit Dropped

ndogg writes "Earlier this year, there was much ado about a Ron Paul staffer, Steve Bierfeldt, being detained by the TSA for carrying large sums of money. The ACLU sued on his behalf, and the TSA changed its rules, now stating that its officers can only screen for unsafe materials. With that, the ACLU dropped its suit. '[Ben Wizner, a staff lawyer for the ACLU, said] screeners get a narrow exception to the Fourth Amendment, which prohibits unreasonable searches, strictly to keep weapons and explosives off planes, not to help police enforce other laws.'"

Comments

Maybe it's just me

[TubeSteak]

Personally, I'd have rather have a legal precedent set VS a rule that can be changed back.

Re:Maybe it's just me

[jcr]

I'd have rather have a legal precedent set VS a rule that can be changed back.

I hear you, but let's not forget that the supreme court has a very spotty record when it comes to enforcing the bill of rights. I'm not sure I'd like to roll the dice on them upholding the fourth or fifth amendment.

-jcr

$4500 a "large sum of money" for travel?

[Animats]

I'm surprised the TSA considered $4500 to be a "large sum of money". That's about two weeks of business travel. If that.

With current credit card fees, it may be more cost-effective to carry cash. Even if you get robbed 1% of the time, you're still ahead.

Cash is the anonymous proxy for economic networks

[Anonymous Coward]

And there is nothing the government hates more than anonymity. Can't tax it, track it and control it unless it is electronic, and traceable. That is why they hate cash so much. The only possible reason for economic anonymity is nefarious. You must be using it to avoid taxation or buy or sell something the government doesn't think you should have or fund terrorists. Cash must be stamped out.

Interpretation, not exception

[mangu]

You can actually get 'narrow exceptions' to the fundamental rights?

No, it's not an exception to the Fourth Amendment. It's only an interpretation that looking for guns and explosives when people board a plane does not constitute an "unreasonable search and seizure", but looking for anything else is "unreasonable".

 

three cheers for Steve Bierfeldt

[bcrowell]

Three cheers for Steve Bierfeldt! Most people are sheep, and wouldn't even think of standing up to authority like this. Of those who aren't sheep, very few would do it despite the inconvenience of missing your flight and the implicit threat of going to jail in a country that no longer thinks it's necessary to give people trials. Listen to the audio he recorded on his iPhone. The TSA guys are cussing at him, and then you hear a loud noise that sounds like someone pounding on a desk. You can hear the stress in Bierfeldt's voice, but he's not backing down just because it's a psychologically intimidating situation. I consider Steve Bierfeldt to be a hero.

Re:Ron Paul supporters can take a deep breath

[QuantumRiff]

No, the system didn't fully work. The TSA changed its "internal policies".. That is much different than a legal precedent, and of course, they can be changed right back, in a month. A person violating "internal policies" might get "disciplined" which is a long way from what's going to happen to someone for willfuly violating your rights. (And really, some of those minimum wage power tripping ego's really do need to get knocked back a few notches.) Also, if I'm not mistaken, pretty much all of the airports use Contractors to actually hire the agents. I'm not sure exactly how much training the employees get, since that would cut into the companies profits...