Slashdot Mirror
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.'"
"...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."
Hmm. Does this means it's ok now to carry my blow in my pocket when I fly home to visit the folks during Xmas? I'm tired of carrying it...up there.
It's interesting how the TSA person sounded in this. Steve keeps asking him 'am I required by law to answer that question' and the TSA operative never once says yes or no. It sounds like he actually doesn't know, which is quite worrying. You'd have thought that some basic education in the relevant parts of the law would be part of basic training for TSA guys - even an afternoon session would have covered that.
The most interesting thing, however, was that he was told that he would be taken to the police station (which meant the DEA or FBI office), against his will, without being arrested and, most importantly, without being read his rights. I would be very surprised if this is legal. Even the police aren't allowed to do that: they can ask you to go with them (and you are free to refuse), or they can arrest you. If they arrest you, then they are required to read you your rights and to maintain a proper custody chain (i.e. the arresting officer is 100% responsible for you until he has received some paperwork where someone else takes responsibility).
Well done to Steve Bierfeldt for not backing down and not losing his temper.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
The most interesting thing, however, was that he was told that he would be taken to the police station (which meant the DEA or FBI office), against his will, without being arrested and, most importantly, without being read his rights. I would be very surprised if this is legal. Even the police aren't allowed to do that: they can ask you to go with them (and you are free to refuse), or they can arrest you. If they arrest you, then they are required to read you your rights and to maintain a proper custody chain (i.e. the arresting officer is 100% responsible for you until he has received some paperwork where someone else takes responsibility).
TheRaven64 is very wrong. I am a law enforcement officer. First of all, your Miranda rights are only read to you if you are *in custody* (not free to leave) and are being questioned for a criminal offense. Being arrested does not automatically invoke Miranda. I have arrested LOTS of people who are never advised of their Miranda rights, because they aren't being questioned. Arrest someone for a warrant for not paying fines? There's no questions to ask, they are going to jail. Arrest someone for another agency's warrant? You don't know what questions to ask, and they are going to jail. The list could go on and on.
Secondly, I have arrested hundreds of people and can tell you that the "property custody chain" makes no sense. We don't sign people over and receive receipts from other officers or jails when you are booked in.
Sorry, TheRaven64, but you don't know what you are talking about.