PDA

View Full Version : Passenger says TSA agents harassed him



Tylerdurden
06-22-2009, 10:00 AM
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Steve Bierfeldt says the Transportation Security Administration pulled him aside for extra questioning in March. He was carrying a pocket edition of the U.S. Constitution and an iPhone capable of making audio recordings. And he used them.
http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2009/US/06/20/tsa.lawsuit/art.tsa.file.gi.jpgSteve Bierfeldt is accusing the Transportation Security Administration of "harassing interrogation."


http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/.element/img/2.0/mosaic/base_skins/baseplate/corner_wire_BL.gif


On a recording a TSA agent can be heard berating Bierfeldt. One sample: "You want to play smartass, and I'm not going to play your f**king game."
Bierfeldt is director of development for the Campaign for Liberty, an outgrowth of the Ron Paul presidential campaign. He was returning from a regional conference March 29 when TSA screeners at Lambert-St. Louis (Illinois) International Airport saw a metal cash box in his carry-on bag. Inside was more than $4,700 dollars in cash -- proceeds from the sale of political merchandise like T-shirts and books.
There are no restrictions on carrying large sums of cash on flights within the United States, but the TSA allegedly took Bierfeldt to a windowless room and, along with other law enforcement agencies, questioned him for almost half an hour about the money.
The American Civil Liberties Union has taken up Bierfeldt's cause and is suing Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano (http://topics.cnn.com/topics/janet_napolitano), whose department includes the TSA. Their complaint alleges that Bierfeldt was "subjected to harassing interrogation, and unlawfully detained."
Larry Schwartztol of the ACLU (http://topics.cnn.com/topics/american_civil_liberties_union) said the TSA (http://topics.cnn.com/topics/transportation_security_administration) is suffering from mission creep.
"We think what happened to Mr. Bierfeldt is a reflection that TSA believes passenger screening is an opportunity to engage in freewheeling law enforcement investigations that have no link to flight safety," he said.
Schwartztol believes many other passengers have been subjected to the same kind of treatment, which he claims violates constitutional protections against unlawful searches.

The TSA wouldn't comment on the lawsuit, but said in a statement that the movement of large amounts of cash through a checkpoint may be investigated "if suspicious activity is suspected."
Unbeknownst to the TSA agents, Bierfieldt had activated the record application on his phone and slipped it into his pocket. It captured the entire conversation.
An excerpt:
Officer: 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.
Officer: Answer that question first, why do you have this money.
Bierfeldt: Am I legally required to answer that question?
Officer: So you refuse to answer that question?
Bierfeldt: No, sir, I am not refusing.
Officer: Well, you're not answering.
Bierfeldt: I'm simply asking my rights under the law.
The officers can be heard saying they will involve the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Drug Enforcement Administration, and appear to threaten arrest, saying they are going to transport Bierfeldt to the local police station, in handcuffs if necessary.
Bierfeldt told CNN he believes their behavior was inappropriate.
"You're in a locked room with no windows. You've got TSA agent. You've got police officers with loaded guns. They're in your face. A few of them were swearing at me."
But the officers did not follow through on their threats. Near the end of the recording an additional officer enters the situation and realizes the origins of the money.
Officer: So these are campaign contributions for Ron Paul?
Bierfeldt: Yes, sir.
Officer: You're free to go.
According to the TSA, "Passengers are required to cooperate with the screening process. Cooperation may involve answering questions about their property. A passenger who refuses to answer questions may be referred to appropriate authorities for further inquiry"
Bierfeldt contends he never refused to answer a question, he only sought to clarify his constitutional rights.
"I asked them, 'Am I required by law to tell you what you're asking me? Am I required to tell you where I am working? Am I required to tell you how I got the cash? Nothing I've done is suspicious. I'm not breaking any laws. I just want to go to my flight. Please advise me as to my rights.' And they didn't."
The TSA says disciplinary action has been taken against one of its employees for inappropriate tone and language.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/06/20/tsa.lawsuit/index.html

Phillip Allen
06-22-2009, 11:51 AM
how many times in your life have you heard "I trust the word of a cop over the word of a suspect"

this has always sent chills down my back...even when I was a teen ager...

ljb5
06-22-2009, 12:06 PM
So let me see if I got this straight.... they asked him some questions, and then when he answered, they let him go.

I'm certainly not an advocate for unrestricted police power, but this guy just seems like a whiner.

Captain Blight
06-22-2009, 12:10 PM
Effin' pigs.

htom
06-22-2009, 01:51 PM
Actually, he didn't answer the "why do you have this money" question; he answered a different question (and we don't know if his answer to that was true.)

Thousands Standing Around messes itself again.

I, Rowboat
06-22-2009, 02:02 PM
Now, don't get me wrong here -- cops really piss me off most of the time -- but it looks like he was itching to provoke something. First of all, yes, carrying around $4700 in cash is suspicious. Second of all, he had a ready and legitimate answer for why he was carrying around that much cash, but instead decided to play games with the cops (why didn't he deposit it in a bank, the dumbass, what if he got mugged?). They love that. Should they have read his rights? Yes. Was he wasting their time? Yes. Could he have diffused the situation, instead of being a street lawyer? Yes. I have no sympathy if he missed his flight. Is this really where he wanted to make a stand?

If they just nabbed you and started asking questions because you've got $32 in your wallet, that would be one thing. Walking around with $4700 is another story, but still not something they can just pick you up on. However, you voluntarily submit to a search as a condition of flying the friendly skies -- that's what screening is. If you don't like that, drive, take a bus, hot air balloon, etc. If the screening turns up something unusual, you should be prepared to provide an explanation. Where did he think stonewalling would get him?

Phillip Allen
06-22-2009, 02:06 PM
If I had money in my pocket and some public lackey demanded I explain it, I would definitely be upset about it...the question suggests “justified” suspicion on the lackey’s part...explained only by the presents of the money itself...

Think about the deep south in the 1950's and a black man is found to have a pocket full of cash...GUILTY on the face of it!

They only forced him to a different geographical area and after some "time" keeping him there released him with no explanation or apologies...

2MeterTroll
06-22-2009, 02:16 PM
since when is 4700 an overly large amount of cash?
why is it suspicious?
what business is it of the governments?
Why is it legal to detain someone for having money?
why do i have to answer any ones questions?

High C
06-22-2009, 02:17 PM
....If they just nabbed you and started asking questions because you've got $32 in your wallet, that would be one thing. Walking around with $4700 is another story...

It is? How so, either legally or otherwise? That figure is well below any threshold I've ever heard of that triggers any sort of legal concern.

$4700 is walking around money for some people.

I, Rowboat
06-22-2009, 02:20 PM
If I had money in my pocket and some public lackey demanded I explain it, I would definitely be upset about it...the question suggests “justified” suspicion on the lackey’s part...explained only by the presents of the money itself...

Think about the deep south in the 1950's and a black man is found to have a pocket full of cash...GUILTY on the face of it!

They only forced him to a different geographical area and after some "time" keeping him there released him with no explanation or apologies...

Back up a bit. He submitted his bag for screening, a voluntary act he agreed to when he purchased his ticket. They found a box full of money, which prompted questions - legitimate ones - at which point he began to stonewall them. It's not like he was just picked off of the street for harassment. This is completely different from the situation described above.

Phillip Allen
06-22-2009, 02:24 PM
Now, don't get me wrong here -- cops really piss me off most of the time -- but it looks like he was itching to provoke something. First of all, yes, carrying around $4700 in cash is suspicious. Second of all, he had a ready and legitimate answer for why he was carrying around that much cash, but instead decided to play games with the cops (why didn't he deposit it in a bank, the dumbass, what if he got mugged?). They love that. Should they have read his rights? Yes. Was he wasting their time? Yes. Could he have diffused the situation, instead of being a street lawyer? Yes. I have no sympathy if he missed his flight. Is this really where he wanted to make a stand?

If they just nabbed you and started asking questions because you've got $32 in your wallet, that would be one thing. Walking around with $4700 is another story, but still not something they can just pick you up on. However, you voluntarily submit to a search as a condition of flying the friendly skies -- that's what screening is. If you don't like that, drive, take a bus, hot air balloon, etc. If the screening turns up something unusual, you should be prepared to provide an explanation. Where did he think stonewalling would get him?

Could you tell us where the threshold is for having too much money (POWER) is? Any amount of cash is not cause for suspicion except in a state which seeks to control the public...

Would 5K be notice for suspicion for a shoe salesman? A senator? A lawyer? A cattleman returning from the sale barn?

When the contents of a man's pocket becomes the state's business, we have crossed some line I think

Further: why is the victim guilty of provocation and not the cop? Is a cop's word more valuable than that of a citizen?

I have been pulled out of line for an international flight (leaving the US at the time). It was timed so that very little "detention" would cause me to miss the flight and then give themselves 24 hours more to play with. I was aware of this. I am pretty sure I was profiled but don't know why...they "swiped" my carry on looking for explosives...while three muscles with hats stood inches behind the chair I was TOLD to sit in...it was obvious that the men were trying to get a rise out of me...so I smiled and started a friendly conversation and asked what they were looking for..."drugs?" I asked...

These guys were using coercion to get a reaction from me...coercion is VERY real and generally an illegal act...

”all animals are equal…but some are MORE equal than others…”

Rick-Mi
06-22-2009, 02:32 PM
how many times in your life have you heard "I trust the word of a cop over the word of a suspect"

this has always sent chills down my back...even when I was a teen ager...


Imagine yourself in that situation as a black male.....



.

I, Rowboat
06-22-2009, 02:45 PM
It is? How so, either legally or otherwise? That figure is well below any threshold I've ever heard of that triggers any sort of legal concern.

$4700 is walking around money for some people.

Thanks for the incomplete quote.

Please, do tell us what the threshold levels of walking-around cash are that you've heard about.

Phillip Allen
06-22-2009, 02:47 PM
Imagine yourself in that situation as a black male.....



.


I have done...

LeeG
06-22-2009, 02:47 PM
at some point large amounts of cash are suspicious indicators, not evidence, of illegal activity. Drugs go one way, money goes another. Years back I knew a guy who ferried $80,000 quantities of cash between Hawaii and the mainland.

It's probably not a good idea to have an attitude with the authorities, when they're at work. If a person just likes to carry cash there's many valid reasons they can give without evading the question and irritating them.

Phillip Allen
06-22-2009, 02:49 PM
Back up a bit. He submitted his bag for screening, a voluntary act he agreed to when he purchased his ticket. They found a box full of money, which prompted questions - legitimate ones - at which point he began to stonewall them. It's not like he was just picked off of the street for harassment. This is completely different from the situation described above.


where is the legiatimacy?

I, Rowboat
06-22-2009, 02:58 PM
where is the legiatimacy?

Where is the legitimacy? Of what? Of the TSA's authority to subject certain individuals to additional scrutiny when initial, voluntary screening efforts suggest something out of the ordinary? That sounds legitimate to me.

I'm much more outraged when they subject an old lady to additional scrutiny, or tell a nursing mother to empty the contents of her baby's bottles. A guy who starts pissing them off by wasting their time and refusing to answer reasonable questions after a voluntary search turns up something out of the ordinary? I don't have nearly as much sympathy for him.

Phillip Allen
06-22-2009, 03:02 PM
cops have a right NOT to be pissed off...not so lesser beings...

again...where's the legit reason?

I, Rowboat
06-22-2009, 03:16 PM
cops have a right NOT to be pissed off...not so lesser beings...

again...where's the legit reason?

In your mind, how much cash would be enough cash for you, as a TSA officer, to pull someone aside to ask them about it? Is $10,000 enough? Is $100,000? I bet there aren't set amounts, but a box of cash is a lot more unusual than a wallet. What if there was no box, but instead it was just a duffel bag stuffed full of cash. Would that be sufficiently unusual? :confused:

htom
06-22-2009, 03:21 PM
$1 ----- 10 ---- 10
$2 ----- 10 ---- 20
$5 ----- 10 ---- 50
$10 ---- 10 ---- 100
$20 ---- 10 ---- 200
$50 ---- 10 ---- 500
$100 --- 10 --- 1000
$1000 -- 10 - 10,000

That stack (80 bills) would be roughly 0.8" high, ~$11,880.

Back in the 1960's I used to carry two hundred dollar bills folded between my library card and my voter id card; that was the amount that courts at that time thought was a demonstration that you were not a vagrant. With inflation, ten times that, it some would be prudent to carry a couple of grand. Two or three nights in hotels, clothes, meals, car rental, can chew up that in a hurry if you're unexpectedly stranded and the plastic money system breaks down.

What's driving this is the "War on Money", where the government gets to confiscate cash that it thinks you shouldn't have, and you have to go through elaborate expensive hoops in an attempt to get it back. People rarely win these cases.

LeeG
06-22-2009, 03:23 PM
I'm much more outraged when they subject an old lady to additional scrutiny, or tell a nursing mother to empty the contents of her baby's bottles. .

no sh*t,,a few years back I saw a woman my age wheeling who I assume was her mother through security and the old lady got the extra treatment. There's this plexiglass stall she had to stand in waiting for a TSA agent to search her. I'm watching and it's obvious the lady has to lean on the wall to get support,,15 seconds, 30 seconds at which point I look around and there's an uncomfortable cluster of TSA folks watching and I look to the guy with the gun and say "could someone get her a chair, now?"

Tylerdurden
06-22-2009, 03:24 PM
Why is it the Fed Govs business how I got my money and how I carry it?

He asked a simple question about his rights before answering any questions about his money. Did the constitution fly out the window?

I can't believe how stupid some people are. Just lovers of a badge, any badge.

LeeG
06-22-2009, 03:32 PM
cops have a right NOT to be pissed off...not so lesser beings...

again...where's the legit reason?

are you chosing to be stupid? How about a bottle of pills with no prescription, or someone elses name on the prescription. How about a pile of feathers from an endangered bird. I don't think cops have the choice to selectively enforce some laws and not others. When the airport security are told they have to monitor airport restrooms for theft they don't ignore sexual solicitation, when they monitor passengers at security for suspicious behaviour they don't get to pick and chose what is worth asking questions for or not.

"hey,,it's only a cuban cigar, let it go"
"hey, we're not here to catch people in the transport of illegal activities,,if the can't provide reasonable answers to our questions just let them go"

"why are you carrying this much cash?"
"I like to", "I'm getting a present for my mother"

George Roberts
06-22-2009, 03:38 PM
I find carrying $200 for a couple weeks worth of emergencies for 4 people excessive but ...

There are very few restrictions on the movement of currency. There is the $10K reporting limit for banks. I suspect there is a limit on the amount one can move out of the country.

There should have been no questions asked about the legal act of possessing $4700.

Gary E
06-22-2009, 03:40 PM
$1 ----- 10 ---- 10
$2 ----- 10 ---- 20
$5 ----- 10 ---- 50
$10 ---- 10 ---- 100
$20 ---- 10 ---- 200
$50 ---- 10 ---- 500
$100 --- 10 --- 1000
$1000 -- 10 - 10,000

That stack (80 bills) would be roughly 0.8" high, ~$11,880.

Back in the 1960's I used to carry two hundred dollar bills folded between my library card and my voter id card; that was the amount that courts at that time thought was a demonstration that you were not a vagrant. With inflation, ten times that, it some would be prudent to carry a couple of grand. Two or three nights in hotels, clothes, meals, car rental, can chew up that in a hurry if you're unexpectedly stranded and the plastic money system breaks down.

What's driving this is the "War on Money", where the government gets to confiscate cash that it thinks you shouldn't have, and you have to go through elaborate expensive hoops in an attempt to get it back. People rarely win these cases.

Better git your Mic calibrated...
I just measured a bunch and the average is very close to 0.004 per bill, and it does not matter what the denomination, they're all the same. So your stack of 80 is closer to 0.320 Now ther good news?... since your "stack" was 0.800 you gots lots more than you thought :)

Back in the 70's a friend of mine used to carry a wad of $100's in his pocket at all time, and from the above I'm guessing he had near 10 or 12 g's...

htom
06-22-2009, 03:44 PM
(I thought that used USA currency was about a hundred to an inch. Ah well.)

Gary E
06-22-2009, 03:50 PM
(I thought that used USA currency was about a hundred to an inch. Ah well.)
Nah... a typical piece of paper is 0.003
a IBM card.. anybody remember them?... they're 0.008

John of Phoenix
06-22-2009, 03:53 PM
Am I required by law to tell you what you're asking me?
So what's the answer?
If a law enforcement officer interrogates you, what are your options?

Answer.
Don't answer.
Ask what your rights are.
Ask for an attorney.

What else?

I, Rowboat
06-22-2009, 04:04 PM
Why is it the Fed Govs business how I got my money and how I carry it?

He asked a simple question about his rights before answering any questions about his money. Did the constitution fly out the window?

I can't believe how stupid some people are. Just lovers of a badge, any badge.

Is it the state's business? The county's? Do you think that no screening should be done?

Hey -- thanks for the insult; it really helps your argument along! :confused:

I, Rowboat
06-22-2009, 04:08 PM
So what's the answer?
If a law enforcement officer interrogates you, what are your options?

Answer.
Don't answer.
Ask what your rights are.
Ask for an attorney.

What else?

Agreed. Keeping you on schedule for your flight really isn't their primary concern, though. If you select any but the first option, be prepared to accept additional delay. No one's making you fly - that's voluntary -- and how you deal with what TSA throws at you is also voluntary.

Tylerdurden
06-22-2009, 04:09 PM
Is it the state's business? The county's? Do you think that no screening should be done?

Hey -- thanks for the insult; it really helps your argument along! :confused:


Screening for explosives, weapons, maybe? For a persons cash no.
That's what investigations are for. The founders never intended nets to be cast to see what could be dragged in. Read the bill of rights sometime, it may be educational.

As far as insults go... you can dish it out but apparently cannot take it. Would you like me to provide some of your juicer quotes from other threads dear?

Tylerdurden
06-22-2009, 04:12 PM
Agreed. Keeping you on schedule for your flight really isn't their primary concern, though. If you select any but the first option, be prepared to accept additional delay. No one's making you fly - that's voluntary -- and how you deal with what TSA throws at you is also voluntary.


So is answering questions, delaying someone without probable cause is something else entirely. There was no threat to flight safety here.
You know the reason for the TSA?

bobbys
06-22-2009, 04:14 PM
I often get stopped but show the Proper authorities my copy of The catcher in the Rye and my Best of Barry Manilow CD.

John of Phoenix
06-22-2009, 04:15 PM
Is it the state's business? The county's? Do you think that no screening should be done?
That's the question, isn't it? Is $4700 in a carry-on bag the State's business? Why? Since when?

Of course screeing should be done. A cash box full of box cutters is a problem. A cash box with some cash in it is... who's business again? How does it affect the safety of the flight?

I, Rowboat
06-22-2009, 04:15 PM
Screening for explosives, weapons, maybe? For a persons cash no.
That's what investigations are for. The founders never intended nets to be cast to see what could be dragged in. Read the bill of rights sometime, it may be educational.

As far as insults go... you can dish it out but apparently cannot take it. Would you like me to provide some of your juicer quotes from other threads dear?

Damn, girl! You makin' me hot with all of that rough talk! Who's your daddy? That's right, Rowboat's your daddy!

(JCSOH - you can use her tomorrow!)

Brian Palmer
06-22-2009, 04:26 PM
There was no threat to flight safety here.

If you are a TSA agent at the passenger screening area, you do not know that. One only goes through screening after you have checked your bags (if you have checked bags).

If someone is acting suspiciously, and further investigation reveals that they in fact present a threat to flight safety, then the TSA also needs to figure out whether they have checked any bags, and then go through and make sure those bags don't get on the plane.

Maybe somebody approached the guy in the parking lot and said, "Hey, if you take this package and check it with your bags, I'll give you this box of small, used (hard to trace) bills that total up to $4,700. If anybody asks, just tell them you are a fund raiser for Ron Paul and you made the money selling T-shirts."

Paranoia can go both ways.

Brian

Phillip Allen
06-22-2009, 04:40 PM
Maybe-maybe-maybe...maybe some guy in the parking lot showed you a picture of one of your children and told you to put "this" in your checked baggage...so everyone with children should be under suspicion...

It always amazes me that some people can display what THEY think is imagination but in fact have no imagination at all...

2MeterTroll
06-22-2009, 04:44 PM
Excuse me but when did it become the governments right to begin questioning any one and expect any answer other than i want to see my lawyer?

it is not voluntary if it is required to use that mode of transport. It goes to far when suddenly you are subject to what ever crime prevention some flunky deems proper. if you keep giving your freedoms away they keep taking them.

I dont get how this country seems to have turned into a police and government have the right to do anything they want zone.

Contrary to popular belief the government is not here to help, and they are not doing things for our own good. there has been much made for one piddling attack with an aircraft. but it is one piddling attack. a few thousand died and now freedoms and rights are being violated every where, for the remaining billion people. under the auspices of national safety. its amazing to me to see any of this crap allowed by the public.

the statistic is vanishingly small that an air craft will get hijacked and its been proven several times by several people and groups that airport security is a facade at best and at worst a joke. once you pass the initial check point you are pretty much free to do anything you want. think it through for crimany sake.

this is not supposed to be a police state. regardless if you are transporting 4000 in a lock box or your wallet or even your wool socks. it would not be deemed unreasonable if you are traveling. that the guy stone walled them and asked about his rights under the law is legit, asking for a receipt when the confiscate something is also legit.

refusing to answer questions is not an offense. then it is reinforced in the miranda rights. that you dont have to answer.

this paranoia crap makes me bloody crazy... sorry that the above is a little disjointed.

Phillip Allen
06-22-2009, 04:50 PM
Excuse me but when did it become the governments right to begin questioning any one and expect any answer other than i want to see my lawyer?

it is not voluntary if it is required to use that mode of transport. It goes to far when suddenly you are subject to what ever crime prevention some flunky deems proper. if you keep giving your freedoms away they keep taking them.

I dont get how this country seems to have turned into a police and government have the right to do anything they want zone.

Contrary to popular belief the government is not here to help, and they are not doing things for our own good. there has been much made for one piddling attack with an aircraft. but it is one piddling attack. a few thousand died and now freedoms and rights are being violated every where, for the remaining billion people. under the auspices of national safety. its amazing to me to see any of this crap allowed by the public.

the statistic is vanishingly small that an air craft will get hijacked and its been proven several times by several people and groups that airport security is a facade at best and at worst a joke. once you pass the initial check point you are pretty much free to do anything you want. think it through for crimany sake.

this is not supposed to be a police state. regardless if you are transporting 4000 in a lock box or your wallet or even your wool socks. it would not be deemed unreasonable if you are traveling. that the guy stone walled them and asked about his rights under the law is legit, asking for a receipt when the confiscate something is also legit.

refusing to answer questions is not an offense. then it is reinforced in the miranda rights. that you dont have to answer.

this paranoia crap makes me bloody crazy... sorry that the above is a little disjointed.



thank you...

LeeG
06-22-2009, 05:02 PM
good lord you guys are picking your battles well. If you go to the security area acting in a manner that is not cooperative It'll bring attention to yourself. If that's what you want by all means go for it. Pick someone who is at the bottom of an authoritarian totem pole and argue constitutional issues about unreasonable searches.

Real smart. I'm sure they'll be glad to meet you on your level of discourse. In the mean time what time is your flight leaving?

Phillip Allen
06-22-2009, 05:09 PM
coercion, once defined, is ALWAYS illegal

I, Rowboat
06-22-2009, 05:20 PM
good lord you guys are picking your battles well. If you go to the security area acting in a manner that is not cooperative It'll bring attention to yourself. If that's what you want by all means go for it. Pick someone who is at the bottom of an authoritarian totem pole and argue constitutional issues about unreasonable searches.

Real smart. I'm sure they'll be glad to meet you on your level of discourse. In the mean time what time is your flight leaving?

Exactly. Unlike the TSA pukes, you are in a position to use discretion and common sense. And your common sense tells you that now is the time argue about the 4th Amendment?

Believe me, I can see both sides of this argument. I guess I'd have to ask myself whether an airport backroom is really a fruitful venue to protest abuses of authority, or whether I would rather just catch my flight and write a pissed-off letter to every representative and newspaper back at home.

Bill R
06-22-2009, 05:29 PM
TSA= Tremendously Stupid A-holes.

I just flew to PWM with SWMBO and the kids. TSA did not like the flash drive in a shockproof rubber case... with documents property of my company on it. They tried to confiscate it. I told them they needed to either destroy it if front of me or let me keep it. I kept it, but after they ransacked my computer bag, suitcase, rescreened my 6yo son and ransacked his bag...

Bunch of jackbooted thug wannabes... The pretty shirts and tin badges do not make them superior to a citizen, despite what they want to think...

John Smith
06-22-2009, 05:32 PM
Back up a bit. He submitted his bag for screening, a voluntary act he agreed to when he purchased his ticket. They found a box full of money, which prompted questions - legitimate ones - at which point he began to stonewall them. It's not like he was just picked off of the street for harassment. This is completely different from the situation described above.
Why were they legitimate?

There are a number of things they could have found in his bag that would have raised legitimate "red flags", but $4700 in cash?

John Smith
06-22-2009, 05:35 PM
Why is it the Fed Govs business how I got my money and how I carry it?

He asked a simple question about his rights before answering any questions about his money. Did the constitution fly out the window?

I can't believe how stupid some people are. Just lovers of a badge, any badge.
The room they took him to had no windows.:o

Arko
06-22-2009, 05:39 PM
I like Phillip Allen and his views. I would respond but he has already said most of the thing I would have.

2MeterTroll
06-22-2009, 05:40 PM
I dont pick my battles at the airport. but i also will not let the few rights I have be trampled either. you dont get points for after the fact; its pretty much the same thing as Rosa Parks. you deal with it now or you get ignored.

this guy was on the ball enough to record what was going on. how many do you think have no voice and get the same sort of treatment? I'll wager that your going to see reg's soon that will make you have to turn off your cell phones in the airport of they will confiscate them first.

Phillip Allen
06-22-2009, 05:44 PM
Exactly. Unlike the TSA pukes, you are in a position to use discretion and common sense. And your common sense tells you that now is the time argue about the 4th Amendment?

Believe me, I can see both sides of this argument. I guess I'd have to ask myself whether an airport backroom is really a fruitful venue to protest abuses of authority, or whether I would rather just catch my flight and write a pissed-off letter to every representative and newspaper back at home.


Oh? Exactly when IS the time to argue about the 4th amendment?

ishmael
06-22-2009, 05:45 PM
The fact that he was carrying a copy of the US Constitution is a nice tidbit.

I'm with Lj on this one.

"So let me see if I got this straight.... they asked him some questions, and then when he answered, they let him go.

I'm certainly not an advocate for unrestricted police power, but this guy just seems like a whiner. "

For whatever reason the cops had a look see. He didn't get hugely harassed, or beaten, or stolen from, which might have happened in another part of the world. He was questioned.

Do I like this new tenor, brought on by the added security after 9-11? No. And I hope the cops are well trained to look for real security threats and to do it professionally. It's a Pain in the Ass, but necessary.

Phillip Allen
06-22-2009, 05:49 PM
for some, that "line in the sand" is a bit blurry...these are people with no convictions...

Bruce Hooke
06-22-2009, 06:10 PM
I am glad the ACLU has taken up this case. On the other hand, I also agree with LeeG...arguing Constitutional rights with someone at the bottom of the TSA power structure is not likely to be real productive unless your goal is to create a ruckus that can be turned into a lawsuit that will set some sort of precedent.

So, I'd say let's let the courts try to get both sides of the story so we have the full picture...

I, Rowboat
06-22-2009, 06:15 PM
Oh? Exactly when IS the time to argue about the 4th amendment?

After you've finally answered the simple question, caught your flight and you're safely back home, you can write a strongly worded screed to be approved of by all your amateur constitution expert friends in an insular internet chat room of your choosing.

Concordia...41
06-22-2009, 06:18 PM
Speaking for myself only... when asked a question, I answer politely. Doesn't matter if it's a clerk at a store, someone at the ticket counter or someone with a badge. So for it's worked just fine for the past 30+ years or so :)

On the other hand, if I want to cross my arms and make a point or possibly be a galloping jerk , it's my right. You wouldn't hear me complaining about being questioned though...

ishmael
06-22-2009, 06:22 PM
What line in the sand? The guy was boarding a plane. It was their, the company's, airplane, and the cops wanted to have a closer look. I don't see anything wrong with that. What if his satchel had contained a bomb and blew that plane out of the sky? Then people would be complaining about lax security.

I haven't flown in a number of years, and I'm sure it has become a huge hassle, but what's the alternative?

Phillip Allen
06-22-2009, 06:29 PM
After you've finally answered the simple question, caught your flight and you're safely back home, you can write a strongly worded screed to be approved of by all your amateur constitution expert friends in an insular internet chat room of your choosing.

ever read about the black-balling in Hollywood? "Simple question" is a ruse at best

Captain Intrepid
06-22-2009, 06:29 PM
Speaking for myself only... when asked a question, I answer politely. Doesn't matter if it's a clerk at a store, someone at the ticket counter or someone with a badge. So for it's worked just fine for the past 30+ years or so :)


Me too! It's amazing how that works! Though, if they were being jerks to me, then I might ask for a clarification of my rights as well.

Phillip Allen
06-22-2009, 06:31 PM
What line in the sand? The guy was boarding a plane. It was their, the company's, airplane, and the cops wanted to have a closer look. I don't see anything wrong with that. What if his satchel had contained a bomb and blew that plane out of the sky? Then people would be complaining about lax security.

I haven't flown in a number of years, and I'm sure it has become a huge hassle, but what's the alternative?

without a reasonable alternative...it becomes coercion...

also...I remind you the TSA is not a branch of the airline business...they are a private contractor with police powers

I, Rowboat
06-22-2009, 06:37 PM
ever read about the black-balling in Hollywood? "Simple question" is a ruse at best
Ever read about high-balling as a railroad term? It means, "proceed without delay, you have track rights for this block." Of course, it has nothing to do with the discussion at hand, and I merely mention it to waste time and divert your attention; it adds nothing. Just like your last past.

ishmael
06-22-2009, 06:42 PM
"without a reasonable alternative...it becomes coercion..."

I'm sorry, but that's just BS. No one forced this man to book a ride on this plane. Where's the coercion? He may not like the security involved in getting on the plane, but no one forced him to buy a ticket. You've got your signals crossed.

High C
06-22-2009, 06:57 PM
...arguing Constitutional rights with someone at the bottom of the TSA power structure is not likely to be real productive....

Even ordinary street cops have to be EXTREMELY careful about the Constitutional rights of those they question. Where's the exception for these TSA characters? Why are they above the standards we've set for the rest of our law enforcement public servants?

brad9798
06-22-2009, 07:00 PM
I've said this for years:

TSA- taking your order at the drive-thru yesterday, searching your bags today!

But then again, think of all the death and mayhem they have thwarted by collecting toothpaste, lotion and nail clippers ... 9/11 was nothing compared to the damage that toothpaste could rain down!

The Bigfella
06-22-2009, 07:01 PM
Have you guys got illegal recording laws there? I know they apply to telecommunications here, not sure about this sort of instance though.

What's this "Voter ID" that htom mentioned earlier. Serious? You guys have to provide ID to vote? We trust our voters here. You rock up, give the voting official your name and address, he checks that you are enrolled to vote, then hands you your ballot papers. We had a major ruckus here years back when the government suggested citizens be required to carry an identity card. It isn't going to happen. We have the freedom here to be taken at our word.

As for this TSA incident... it sure looks to me like the guy picked a fight.... and I don't have any problem with that. He's pointed out that a uniform seems to make some people think they are god... and they need to be pegged back a bit.

brad9798
06-22-2009, 07:04 PM
Of course we have to present ID to vote ... that only makes sense.

On another note, Lambert International is NOT in Illinois ... it is in Missouri! :rolleyes: So much for the credibility of that article editor!

Glen Longino
06-22-2009, 07:06 PM
"without a reasonable alternative...it becomes coercion..."

I'm sorry, but that's just BS. No one forced this man to book a ride on this plane. Where's the coercion? He may not like the security involved in getting on the plane, but no one forced him to buy a ticket. You've got your signals crossed.

Exactly!
Nobody forced this misguided fool to waste his time collecting a box of money for senile Ron Paul.
Nobody forced him through an airport.
Nobody forced him to refuse to answer legitimate questions.
If he doesn't like airport security, let him find a better pastime than wandering around the country raising funds for a lost cause.
Whine, whine, whine!
Will you America- hating fear-mongers please shut the hell up already!:D

Captain Intrepid
06-22-2009, 07:13 PM
Exactly!
Nobody forced this misguided fool to waste his time collecting a box of money for senile Ron Paul.
Nobody forced him through an airport.
Nobody forced him to refuse to answer legitimate questions.
If he doesn't like airport security, let him find a better pastime than wandering around the country raising funds for a lost cause.
Whine, whine, whine!
Will you America- hating fear-mongers please shut the hell up already!:D

Trust me, no one thinks Ron Paul is moron more than I, but unless you're doing something illegal or there is reasonable cause to think you are, there's no reason you should have to justify yourself to the authorities other than being polite.

2MeterTroll
06-22-2009, 07:18 PM
Have you guys got illegal recording laws there? I know they apply to telecommunications here, not sure about this sort of instance though.

What's this "Voter ID" that htom mentioned earlier. Serious? You guys have to provide ID to vote? We trust our voters here. You rock up, give the voting official your name and address, he checks that you are enrolled to vote, then hands you your ballot papers. We had a major ruckus here years back when the government suggested citizens be required to carry an identity card. It isn't going to happen. We have the freedom here to be taken at our word.

As for this TSA incident... it sure looks to me like the guy picked a fight.... and I don't have any problem with that. He's pointed out that a uniform seems to make some people think they are god... and they need to be pegged back a bit.


And you are required to carry valid photo ID with you at all times and surrender it on demand to any law enforcement officer. Problem with this is we now have 5 internal law enforcement divisions that are public and who knows how many that are not.

local police, state police, sheriff, FBI, homeland security, border patrol, federal police, hmm seems we have seven off the top of my head. then you got TSA (private), nsa (dont know where these dinks land), CG (used to be dep of transportation) BOTFA? (B of tobacco and fire arms also handles liquor) &c.

seems to be the only growth industry in the US is watching the public and removing as many freedoms as are not mentioned in the bill of rights. pretty soon i am sure someone's gonna suggest that all people in the US get chipped.

but it sure looks to me like we got security covered six ways from Sunday.

Phillip Allen
06-22-2009, 07:20 PM
to add to the captain's post...are we to be required to justify ourselves to hired authorities now? where is that to stop...what's a black man doing in THIS neighborhood? Justify yourself boy!

Glen Longino
06-22-2009, 07:24 PM
Trust me, no one thinks Ron Paul is moron more than I, but unless you're doing something illegal or there is reasonable cause to think you are, there's no reason you should have to justify yourself to the authorities other than being polite.

We only know an interpretation of this story, Cap.
I don't trust the accounts I've heard to be reliable.
This poor victim is out there trying to bring attention to his cause selling T-shirts when he gets a million dollars worth of free advertisement, and he's whining about it? I smell a pole cat!

2MeterTroll
06-22-2009, 07:25 PM
its probably your deodorant giving up Glen :)

Captain Intrepid
06-22-2009, 07:30 PM
We only know an interpretation of this story, Cap.
I don't trust the accounts I've heard to be reliable.
This poor victim is out there trying to bring attention to his cause selling T-shirts when he gets a million dollars worth of free advertisement, and he's whining about it? I smell a pole cat!

He's got a recording of the meeting, so I'd hope the complete say will come out with time. Till then, I'm a decent guy so I'll give him the benefit of the doubt. After all, the bits already released show unprofessional behavior from the TSA rent-a-cop, so I have a valid reason to distrust him.

Glen Longino
06-22-2009, 07:50 PM
Good points!
I guess I distrust both sides of this situation equally so far.

Bruce Hooke
06-22-2009, 08:02 PM
Even ordinary street cops have to be EXTREMELY careful about the Constitutional rights of those they question. Where's the exception for these TSA characters? Why are they above the standards we've set for the rest of our law enforcement public servants?

I am not saying they are above the standards. I am just saying that as a practical matter, arguing constitutional issues with the probably relatively low-paid, front line TSA official is not likely to be real productive. Unless your goal is to create a ruckus (either to foment change, gain publicity, or whatever), standing up for principles with a couple of TSA security officers is not likely to do much except slow down your passage through security. Even if you win your Consititutional point, at best you may influence the future actions of one or two security officials and even that is a stretch. Of course if your goal is to get a court case going and effect more widespread change then that is a different matter.

It is sort of like what I was taught in drivers ed if you are pulled over by a cop...don't argue with the cop; make your arguments in front of the judge.

It is a somewhat delicate question because if we don't stand up for principles on smaller matters then when it really matters there may be nobody to stand up. On the other hand, I do think it makes sense to be pragmatic about when you hold strictly to principles and when you decide that it just makes more sense to go with the flow.

George Roberts
06-22-2009, 08:12 PM
This TSA story reminds me of a local incident ...

A police car with or without its flashing lights on passed an ambulance with or without its flashing lights on.

The ambulance driver did or did not make an obscene gesture.

The police car came back.

The ambulance driver did or did not do several things. The police officer did or did not do several things. The medic in the back of the ambulance did or did not do several things.

Lots of amateur video. Dashboard cam video from the police car. Lots of witnesses.

Everyone tells a different story.

But in the end both the police officer and the ambulance driver were just being bullies.

Captain Intrepid
06-22-2009, 08:16 PM
It is sort of like what I was taught in drivers ed if you are pulled over by a cop...don't argue with the cop; make your arguments in front of the judge.

That reminds me of advice on what to say if a cop asks to search something of yours.

"Sir, with all respect, I will not resist, but I do not consent to a search."

It helps to be perfectly polite when saying it. If you say it contemptuously then you do a real good job of pissing off the cop, and reasonably so.

I had some nautical classes with one of the marine rcmp officers around here, nice guy. Took a bunch of us over to the base and showed us around one of the cats they use for patrolling.


Good points!
I guess I distrust both sides of this situation equally so far.

Prudence in action! True though, there usually three sides to every story. One from each of the guys involved and the third is the truth.

Glen Longino
06-22-2009, 09:09 PM
"Prudence in action!"

Don't get me started telling Young Policeman versus Innocent Citizen stories. I've got a thousand!
Some are funny, some are sad, some are poignant, some I simply can never tell out of respect for the long deceased participants.

skuthorp
06-22-2009, 09:14 PM
I am minded of the police cadets who used to heavy their way into the jazz club threatening to close us down if they had to pay, for anything. As it happened I knew the Chief Commisioner well through sailing. The problem, and trhe cadets went away. I sincerely hope that none of them got to graduation. Some types are attracted to a uniform and a badge, and they are precisely the ones who should NEVER be so employed.

Phillip Allen
06-22-2009, 09:16 PM
I am minded of the police cadets who used to heavy their way into the jazz club threatening to close us down if they had to pay, for anything. As it happened I knew the Chief Commisioner well through sailing. The problem, and trhe cadets went away. I sincerely hope that none of them got to graduation. Some types are attracted to a uniform and a badge, and they are precisely the ones who should NEVER be so employed.


yep...

Glen Longino
06-22-2009, 09:27 PM
I qave up the work after four years, 21-25, because of the cops, not the outlaws!
I simply could not trust the cops not to shoot me or run over me accidentally or on purpose.
One night I came home soaked in several people's blood, including my own, and my dear 19 year old wife and mother of my tiny daughter said, "Glen, I can't stand to see you like this again. And I don't want our baby to see you like this. Don't you understand?"
Dumb as I was, I did understand, and I gave it up within the month with no regrets.

The Bigfella
06-22-2009, 09:30 PM
I am minded of the police cadets who used to heavy their way into the jazz club threatening to close us down if they had to pay, for anything. As it happened I knew the Chief Commisioner well through sailing. The problem, and trhe cadets went away. I sincerely hope that none of them got to graduation. Some types are attracted to a uniform and a badge, and they are precisely the ones who should NEVER be so employed.

There was one case down there where a dozen or so fresh graduates showed up at a nightclub and flashed their freddies and asked for free entry. The club owner said "sure guys, but I'll need to hold your badges while you are in the club" Idiots did so, and he rang the local station duty officer and told him the story - and he showed up and confiscated the badges. They learnt a fairly valid lesson out of that. A badge in those days had a street value of about $4,000 btw.

Was that you Jeff?

Cuyahoga Chuck
06-22-2009, 09:35 PM
Me too! It's amazing how that works! Though, if they were being jerks to me, then I might ask for a clarification of my rights as well.

You might end up hassling a someone who only has a GED. Quizzing someone with that level of education about interpretations of the US Constitution seems like either a fruitless passtime or an attempt to stick a finger in the functionary's eye.
I would say the passenger was doing his best to provoke the TSA guy by refusing to comply to readily understanable questions.

Phillip Allen
06-22-2009, 09:53 PM
You might end up hassling a someone who only has a GED. Quizzing someone with that level of education about interpretations of the US Constitution seems like either a fruitless passtime or an attempt to stick a finger in the functionary's eye.
I would say the passenger was doing his best to provoke the TSA guy by refusing to comply to readily understanable questions.

What’s your phone number? Do you like it in the ***? Yep, those are readily understandable questions too...so answer/subordinate to authority...look down and pull your forelock...don't answer back!

BTW, it is obvious the TSA guy was trying to provoke the citizen by making illegal demands...of course there are some here who think it perfectly acceptable for authority to provoke the serfs...just not the other way around…(used to call them guys “check-valves” in the navy)

Captain Intrepid
06-22-2009, 09:53 PM
You might end up hassling a someone who only has a GED. Quizzing someone with that level of education about interpretations of the US Constitution seems like either a fruitless passtime or an attempt to stick a finger in the functionary's eye.
I would say the passenger was doing his best to provoke the TSA guy by refusing to comply to readily understanable questions.

Considering I'm not even American, I'd hope that they'd at least have equal knowledge of the US Constitution to me. :D

And who says this pastime wouldn't bear fruit? I'd say if you've got men running around with guns and delusions of grandeur, it might do well to have em versed in the laws applicable to their job. If they don't even know that the person they're questioning has the right to not answer any questions... I'd say there's some changes that need to be made.

Phillip Allen
06-22-2009, 09:58 PM
thanks captain...we need the help and extra brain power

David Tabor (sailordave)
06-22-2009, 10:15 PM
TSA is pretty much a JOKE. That said I can tell a couple of stories about flying w/ my inflatable life jacket/harness. Best and most polite airport was St. Thomas USVI. Guy was very apologetic about having to check it out, appreciated my being able to quote the exemption and having told him in advance it was in my carryon. (I ALWAYS put it in carry on so I can see them inspect it so I know it isn't damaged!)
He double checked w/ a supervisor that it was an exemption and thanked me for being so easy and polite.

Contrast that to Providence RI a few weeks ago flying home from the Annapolis/Newport race. TOLD them it was in my bag and immediately get a "THAT'S NOT ALLOWED" response.
Yes, it is, it's an approved exemption.

WHAT IS IT? It's a life vest.
TAKE IT OUT. Okay.

They xray it, then pull it aside. Another TSA agent asks what is it? A life vest.

They take it over to a table and I go over. Yet another agent comes over (with an attitude) , Glares at me.
WHAT IS THIS? They're CO2 cartridges. GLARES AGAIN.
NO, I WANT TO KNOW WHAT IS THIS? A life vest, I already told him, and her.

WELL NOW I'M ASKING.
:rolleyes:



Opens it up, looks at it and that was that.
I then overheard one of the agents telling another about the exemption... yadayadayada.

Just rude pricks.


AFA taping the conversation. MOST states allow surreptitious taping if one of the parties to the conversation gives permission, IE the person taping! NOT all states are like this though.

2MeterTroll
06-23-2009, 12:12 AM
You might end up hassling a someone who only has a GED. Quizzing someone with that level of education about interpretations of the US Constitution seems like either a fruitless passtime or an attempt to stick a finger in the functionary's eye.
I would say the passenger was doing his best to provoke the TSA guy by refusing to comply to readily understanable questions.

I think before you go insulting folk who have a GED you best read it. A GED tests at the top 1/3rd of those graduating high school.

better a GED then some wanker jock that passed high school on a sports team.

donald branscom
06-23-2009, 12:18 AM
Before you can sue the government you must get permission.

It takes at least 6 months.

Domesticated_Mr. Know It All
06-23-2009, 12:47 AM
Most people who have nothing to hide cooperate with security, especially at the freakin airport!
He's lucky they didn't taze his ass.
The guys a moron in my opinion.


Working security at the airport is a truly miserable Job.
You poke the bee's nest with a stick, you can't cry when you get stung eh?

Cuyahoga Chuck
06-23-2009, 12:54 AM
Considering I'm not even American, I'd hope that they'd at least have equal knowledge of the US Constitution to me. :D

And who says this pastime wouldn't bear fruit? I'd say if you've got men running around with guns and delusions of grandeur, it might do well to have em versed in the laws applicable to their job. If they don't even know that the person they're questioning has the right to not answer any questions... I'd say there's some changes that need to be made.

Bickering with some low-level funtionary who is just trying to get to break time seems fruitless to me. I go to the airport because I want a ride not because I want to hassle somebody with a uniform.
Who says they are cops or have the authority of peace officers?
Who says they have guns?
Delusional? Maybe the baby kept him up all night.
Even in a court of law you don't get to shoot your mouth off. If he didn't want to speak he could have said so and kept his mouth shut. At least it wouldn't have pissed off the TSA guy. The TSA guy was under no obligation to acquiesse to "tell me my rights". It may have been something he was powerless to do because he was totally ignorant of the legal position of the passenger. After all the TSA guy is just executing a standard regimen that was part of his job discription.

2MeterTroll
06-23-2009, 01:00 AM
BS. only those cowed by the system allow their rights to be violated meekly.

he did cooperate and he asked a simple question; one even folks who like the government can understand.

"Bierfeldt: Yes, sir, and I'm asking whether I'm legally required to answer that question."

you perhaps think he's got no right to ask this question? or do you think we should all just let the cops do what ever they please and damn the legality of it?

Domesticated_Mr. Know It All
06-23-2009, 01:10 AM
If you wanna get on the plane bad enough you'll do whatever they ask of you.
If it's too much for ya, take a train or buy a motorhome.
Whatever ya do, don't get in line in front of me.

Bruce Hooke
06-23-2009, 01:13 AM
BS. only those cowed by the system allow their rights to be violated meekly.

he did cooperate and he asked a simple question; one even folks who like the government can understand.

"Bierfeldt: Yes, sir, and I'm asking whether I'm legally required to answer that question."

you perhaps think he's got no right to ask this question? or do you think we should all just let the cops do what ever they please and damn the legality of it?

I know your comment was not directed at me...but what I would say in response to you is that he had the right to ask the question. However, I have doubts about how much he gained in terms of ongoing protection of his or anyone else's rights he achieved by asking the question (except that in this case he may actually make a difference because this has gone so public and is going to court, but that is a pretty unusual outcome). It is a question of picking your battles. If you go through life always determined to stand on principle on every last matter your life is likely to be full of rights protected, maybe full of self-rightousness, but probably also full of stress and strife, and a bit thin on happiness!

2MeterTroll
06-23-2009, 01:24 AM
I know your comment was not directed at me...but what I would say in response to you is that he had the right to ask the question. However, I have doubts about how much he gained in terms of ongoing protection of his or anyone else's rights he achieved by asking the question (except that in this case he may actually make a difference because this has gone so public and is going to court, but that is a pretty unusual outcome). It is a question of picking your battles. If you go through life always determined to stand on principle on every last matter your life is likely to be full of rights protected, maybe full of self-rightousness, but probably also full of stress and strife, and a bit thin on happiness!

I agree with picking your fights. but i also think that when someone has had enough and takes a stand its not a bad thing.
it's not stupid for people to make these folks toe the line cause no one else will do it for us. its our job. WE THE PEOPLE.
theres lots been written by the founding fathers and folks much smarter than us saying these things are not good to let fester and grow. many of them where looking at possible futures; well we are in one and we have a stack of guide books to follow.

however we seem to be ignoring history's guidance and feeling like this is the norm.

Domesticated_Mr. Know It All
06-23-2009, 01:44 AM
to add to the captain's post...are we to be required to justify ourselves to hired authorities now? where is that to stop...what's a black man doing in THIS neighborhood? Justify yourself boy!

You need a Hispanic police chief with a Polish Mayor and a mostly Black city council, like I got.
Nobody gets away with that crap in this town.

ishmael
06-23-2009, 03:37 AM
Has anyone ridden the dog, lately?

Tylerdurden
06-23-2009, 04:58 AM
Yes, "go along to get along". Motto of slaves throughout history.:)

Captain Intrepid
06-23-2009, 06:22 AM
Bickering with some low-level funtionary who is just trying to get to break time seems fruitless to me. I go to the airport because I want a ride not because I want to hassle somebody with a uniform.
Who says they are cops or have the authority of peace officers?
Who says they have guns?
Delusional? Maybe the baby kept him up all night.
Even in a court of law you don't get to shoot your mouth off. If he didn't want to speak he could have said so and kept his mouth shut. At least it wouldn't have pissed off the TSA guy. The TSA guy was under no obligation to acquiesse to "tell me my rights". It may have been something he was powerless to do because he was totally ignorant of the legal position of the passenger. After all the TSA guy is just executing a standard regimen that was part of his job discription.

If the TSA employee had two brain cells to rub together, when asked about the fellow's rights, he should have said "be back in a tick" and phoned his superior to confirm. Instead he tried to hide his ignorance by playing tough.

Ignorance is excusable, willful ignorance when you can easily find out the answer is not. Thats what separates professionals from second rate wastes of wages.

What do you do when someone asks you a reasonable question at work you don't know the answer to?

skuthorp
06-23-2009, 07:41 AM
The 'security gards' at our airports (not to be confused with the Federal Police) are low paid, badly trained, but mercifully unarmed. The screening process for employment has been proved to be dodgy, much the same as for a night club bouncer, and sometimes the same people. Education is probably not a strongpoint, bu the desire for a uniform and a badge probably is. I imagine the same demographic applies in the US.

John of Phoenix
06-23-2009, 10:27 AM
Dave Tabor:
WHAT IS IT? It's a life vest.
TAKE IT OUT. Okay.

They xray it, then pull it aside. Another TSA agent asks what is it? A life vest.

They take it over to a table and I go over. Yet another agent comes over (with an attitude) , Glares at me.
WHAT IS THIS? They're CO2 cartridges. GLARES AGAIN.
NO, I WANT TO KNOW WHAT IS THIS? A life vest, I already told him, and her.
These people really can't recognize a life vest? What else could it possibly be? Scary.

Maybe you should print out their exemption and keep it in your bag so you can show it to them when they hassel you.

Kaa
06-23-2009, 10:32 AM
One relevant point that most people seem to forget.

The police (in the US) have a very widespread habit of confiscating all significant amounts of cash found on individuals. No, no charge is necessary. The cash is just confiscated because it's presumed to come from illegal activities and if you want it back you have to go to court and prove (you prove, the burden's on you) that this cash is legitimate. Takes a long while, too.

It may be that this guy's being lawyerly and obstinate saved him from having to fight for his money in a court a year or two from now.

Kaa

Phillip Allen
06-23-2009, 10:33 AM
and to think I started to join that pool of fools...I just couldn't be a bricklayer anymore...perhaps I would have been a point of light for weary travelers :)

Phillip Allen
06-23-2009, 10:35 AM
One relevant point that most people seem to forget.

The police (in the US) have a very widespread habit of confiscating all significant amounts of cash found on individuals. No, no charge is necessary. The cash is just confiscated because it's presumed to come from illegal activities and if you want it back you have to go to court and prove (you prove, the burden's on you) that this cash is legitimate. Takes a long while, too.

It may be that this guy's being lawyerly and obstinate saved him from having to fight for his money in a court a year or two from now.

Kaa


it goes along with my (disputed on this forum) claim that police are just tax collectors with guns

Cuyahoga Chuck
06-23-2009, 10:57 AM
BS. only those cowed by the system allow their rights to be violated meekly.

he did cooperate and he asked a simple question; one even folks who like the government can understand.

"Bierfeldt: Yes, sir, and I'm asking whether I'm legally required to answer that question."

you perhaps think he's got no right to ask this question? or do you think we should all just let the cops do what ever they please and damn the legality of it?

I repeat, WHO SAYS THESE GUYS ARE POLICEMEN? Do you know that for a fact? Do they have the power to detain and arrest? Are they armed? In a legal arguement that makes a big difference. I don't know that and nobody here has shown that to be the case.
There is also the case of the intent of the complaintent. Was he engaginging in a legitimate discourse or was he just trying to bust the TSA guy's chops because he liked to challeng authority?
The only thing the TSA guy did wrong was to get sucked into an arguement. He should have detained the arguementative passenger till his plane was gone, apologised and then turned him loose.

John of Phoenix
06-23-2009, 11:16 AM
I repeat, WHO SAYS THESE GUYS ARE POLICEMEN?
TSA screeners are not, nor are they armed. If they want you detained, arrested, cuffed, tased, shot, etc., they call a cop which is what happend in this case.

This from the TSA web site:
(Click on the second link and check out some of the public's 338 comments about this incident.)


6.22.2009

St. Louis Incident Update (http://www.tsa.gov/blog/2009/06/st-louis-incident-update.html)



In April, I blogged about an incident in St. Louis (http://www.tsa.gov/blog/2009/04/incident-at-st-louis-international.html) where a passenger’s cash box was searched.

Since this is in the news again, I thought I would write a quick recap with some updates.

On March 29th, a metal box containing a large amount of coins and cash was flagged for additional screening. Any large amount of metallic objects in one place (loose change or rolls of coins) appear as opaque images and are difficult and sometimes impossible to clear without being searched. I blogged about this type of search last October. (http://www.tsa.gov/blog/2008/10/message-in-carry-on.html) If we can’t see through something on the x-ray, we have to take a closer look by opening the box/bag. Due to the contents, the passenger was taken to a private screening area which is customary when screening money or high dollar value items such as jewelry.

While it’s legal to travel with any amount of money you wish to carry when flying domestically, movements of large amounts of cash (http://www.tsa.gov/blog/2009/04/traveling-with-large-amounts-of-cash.html) through the checkpoint may be investigated by law enforcement authorities if suspicious activity is suspected. As a general rule, passengers are required to cooperate with the screening process. Cooperation may involve answering questions about their property. A passenger who refuses to answer questions may be referred to appropriate authorities for further inquiry. When traveling internationally, a passenger must file a report with U.S. Customs (http://www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/home.xml) when flying with amounts exceeding $10,000. (or its foreign equivalent)

A TSA employee and members of the St. Louis Airport Police Department (http://www.flystl.com/flystl/security/police/) can be heard on the audio recording. TSA holds its employees to the highest professional standards. The tone and language used by the TSA employee was inappropriate and proper disciplinary action was taken.

Phillip Allen
06-23-2009, 11:44 AM
I repeat, WHO SAYS THESE GUYS ARE POLICEMEN? Do you know that for a fact? Do they have the power to detain and arrest? Are they armed? In a legal arguement that makes a big difference. I don't know that and nobody here has shown that to be the case.
There is also the case of the intent of the complaintent. Was he engaginging in a legitimate discourse or was he just trying to bust the TSA guy's chops because he liked to challeng authority?
The only thing the TSA guy did wrong was to get sucked into an arguement. He should have detained the arguementative passenger till his plane was gone, apologised and then turned him loose.

I see you are guilty of summery judgment...lot of guys like that in Germany a little over 6 decades ago...

Kaa
06-23-2009, 11:46 AM
The only thing the TSA guy did wrong was to get sucked into an arguement. He should have detained the arguementative passenger till his plane was gone, apologised and then turned him loose.

Of course -- lack of obeisance to authority MUST be punished.

Kaa

Phillip Allen
06-23-2009, 11:49 AM
Of course -- lack of obeisance to authority MUST be punished.

Kaa


yes, I've noticed this about our boy for a long time...truly a dangerous man if given too much authority

Cuyahoga Chuck
06-23-2009, 11:59 AM
Of course -- lack of obeisance to authority MUST be punished.

Kaa

Life is full of gamesmanship. If you decide to play and don't have the requirements, you lose. Meandering around yelling "I want my rights" shows a definite lack of preparation. I say this case goes nowhere. ACLU or no.
You ,as an American, are entitled to stir up all the offal you want but is may cause much wear and tear on your person.

Kaa
06-23-2009, 12:02 PM
Life is full of gamesmanship. If you decide to play and don't have the requirements, you lose. Meandering around yelling "I want my rights" shows a definite lack of preparation. I say this case goes nowhere. ACLU or no.
You ,as an American, are entitled to stir up all the offal you want but is may cause much wear and tear on your person.

Well, let's put it this way. You go bow and scrape, and I'll go cause trouble. Deal?

Kaa

Phillip Allen
06-23-2009, 12:21 PM
those who go along meekly are laying their burdens on their fellow man...very cowardly if you ask me

Captain Blight
06-23-2009, 12:23 PM
Of course -- lack of obeisance to authority MUST be punished.

KaaEffin' pigs.

Brian Palmer
06-23-2009, 12:26 PM
Well, let's put it this way. You go bow and scrape, and I'll go cause trouble. Deal?

Kaa

Like others have said, just don't do it in front of me in line at the airport.

If you don't like the TSA, don't fly commercial airlines and tell your elected representatives why you are not flying. If everyone that shares your beliefs follows your stoic and principled example, the rest of us "sheep" that just want to go from A to B will be all the more grateful.

I'll save my energy for a better battle. There's lots of injustice in this world and arguing with the lowest levels of the TSA is not very high on my list.

Maybe all the Ron Paul supports could get together and charter a bus next time?

Brian

2MeterTroll
06-23-2009, 12:43 PM
I repeat, WHO SAYS THESE GUYS ARE POLICEMEN? Do you know that for a fact? Do they have the power to detain and arrest? Are they armed? In a legal arguement that makes a big difference. I don't know that and nobody here has shown that to be the case.
There is also the case of the intent of the complaintent. Was he engaginging in a legitimate discourse or was he just trying to bust the TSA guy's chops because he liked to challeng authority?
The only thing the TSA guy did wrong was to get sucked into an arguement. He should have detained the arguementative passenger till his plane was gone, apologised and then turned him loose.

Well lets see they have the power to detain you in a holding room, they have the power of search a seizure, and at least in our airports a good number of them are loafing around with batons and and hand cuffs oh a then you got the number of folks with guns all hanging around. pretty much makes them cops in ability if not name. it doesn't matter if they are police trained they are sub contracted by the government to do security work. and as such should be following the same rules as the government.

2MeterTroll
06-23-2009, 12:56 PM
Like others have said, just don't do it in front of me in line at the airport.

If you don't like the TSA, don't fly commercial airlines and tell your elected representatives why you are not flying. If everyone that shares your beliefs follows your stoic and principled example, the rest of us "sheep" that just want to go from A to B will be all the more grateful.

I'll save my energy for a better battle. There's lots of injustice in this world and arguing with the lowest levels of the TSA is not very high on my list.

Maybe all the Ron Paul supports could get together and charter a bus next time?

Brian

you can be what ever you want. I generally don't fly unless i must. its a pain to have to hang on to a wall while a screening agent is X-raying my oak cane for the 4th time and its a pain to try and stand there while they run the scanning wand around my leg 10 or so times to see if in fact the 2lbs of titanium is an threat to security. like i can remove the freeking rods that run from whats left of my knee to my ankle.

i suppose its funny and frustrating to you folks behind me in line when i fall over cause TSA wanks want to see me try to walk without my cane. maybe it would satisfy you if i hopped or something, give me the hat with bells on so i jingle and entertain for you and the TSA.

Brian Palmer
06-23-2009, 12:59 PM
The TSA screeners are not police officers. I just went through Philadelphia, Newark, and Portland, Maine. For example, the police in the Newark airport are Port Authority of New York and New Jersey officers.

Here at our local airport, the police can be either State Troopers or part of the local police force. Again, the TSA screeners are just screeners, the police are there if needed, but they do not do the screening. The screeners do not have batons or cuffs or any of that. Just take a look.

Brian

Brian Palmer
06-23-2009, 01:04 PM
you can be what ever you want. I generally don't fly unless i must. its a pain to have to hang on to a wall while a screening agent is X-raying my oak cane for the 4th time and its a pain to try and stand there while they run the scanning wand around my leg 10 or so times to see if in fact the 2lbs of titanium is an threat to security. like i can remove the freeking rods that run from whats left of my knee to my ankle.

i suppose its funny and frustrating to you folks behind me in line when i fall over cause TSA wanks want to see me try to walk without my cane. maybe it would satisfy you if i hopped or something, give me the hat with bells on so i jingle and entertain for you and the TSA.

It's not funny at all. Didn't say it was. I guess you would be just as displeased, then, as I would be to be stuck behind the guy with the cash box.

Brian

Phillip Allen
06-23-2009, 01:10 PM
It's not funny at all. Didn't say it was. I guess you would be just as displeased, then, as I would be to be stuck behind the guy with the cash box.

Brian

I see your humanity has its limits...that being your "personal" comfort

Kaa
06-23-2009, 01:12 PM
I guess you would be just as displeased, then, as I would be to be stuck behind the guy with the cash box.

Stuck behind?

"Steve Bierfeldt says the Transportation Security Administration pulled him aside for extra questioning in March."

You think the entire line at the security checkpoint stood and waited while he was questioned in a separate room?

Kaa

Phillip Allen
06-23-2009, 01:13 PM
Stuck behind?

"Steve Bierfeldt says the Transportation Security Administration pulled him aside for extra questioning in March."

You think the entire line at the security checkpoint stood and waited while he was questioned in a separate room?

Kaa


yes, he does

Captain Blight
06-23-2009, 01:16 PM
You know what I wish? I wish the Shoe Bomber hadn't used his shoes. I wish he'd tried to smuggle a bomb cleverly disguised as a squalling, inconsolable baby. Then maybe there's be a ban in place that made sense, and actually contributed to passenger comfort....

Phillip Allen
06-23-2009, 01:18 PM
You know what I wish? I wish the Shoe Bomber hadn't used his shoes. I wish he'd tried to smuggle a bomb cleverly disguised as a squalling, inconsolable baby. Then maybe there's be a ban in place that made sense, and actually contributed to passenger comfort....

Ya know...cynicism is a progressive disease... :)

2MeterTroll
06-23-2009, 01:22 PM
It's not funny at all. Didn't say it was. I guess you would be just as displeased, then, as I would be to be stuck behind the guy with the cash box.

Brian

problem is its the same sort of bullying.

Phillip Allen
06-23-2009, 01:25 PM
its always been this way...people like to say the victim is the cause of the bully

Kaa
06-23-2009, 01:34 PM
You know what I wish? I wish the Shoe Bomber hadn't used his shoes. I wish he'd tried to smuggle a bomb cleverly disguised as a squalling, inconsolable baby. Then maybe there's be a ban in place that made sense, and actually contributed to passenger comfort....

I've heard wishes for a bra bomber so that everyone were required to remove their bras to be scanned separately :D

Kaa

Captain Blight
06-23-2009, 01:38 PM
I'll take off my shoes; but I really don't want to have to take off my bra. Even when the underwires dig in and....


oops. TMI, huh?

John of Phoenix
06-23-2009, 01:46 PM
This is an interesting case that was just decided against the TSA.

The passenger is flagged for extra screening by the airline. The ruling doesn't say why or how he was flagged which is kinda spooky in itself. He goes through security and they have him empty his pockets, wand him, take his bag apart, swipe it for explosives, the whole routine. No weapons, no explosives but during the pat down the TSA guys feels something in the guys front pockets. Turns out to be a couple of big wads of cash. Hmm... The bag inspection turns up envelopes full of cash. Hmmm... And some envelopes with phony passports. WEEEELL NOW. What's this fellow up to? Call in the police, the guy is arrested and ultimately indicted - three counts of passport forgery and a couple of attempted bank fraud.

It all gets thrown out. (http://www.rebelmodel.com/tsa/Fofana.pdf) Illegal search and seizure.

The TSA is gonna get nailed on this $4700 harrassment mess. As well they should.

John of Phoenix
06-23-2009, 01:50 PM
I'll take off my shoes; but I really don't want to have to take off my bra. Even when the underwires dig in and....


oops. TMI, huh?
She took off her shoes, she took off her jacket, she took off her belt, she took off her jewelry and said, "I'm not taking off any more clothes until someone gives me some money."

Even the TSA guys cracked up.

Cuyahoga Chuck
06-23-2009, 02:01 PM
Well, let's put it this way. You go bow and scrape, and I'll go cause trouble. Deal?

Kaa

Your reliance on such a characterization of me shows the pausity of muscle in your arguements. You may think you are a one-line Socratic wonder but, I assure you that isn't so.
I don't need to deal. There are plenty of good cards in my hand.
Your move. I assume it will be worderously short, as usual.

Kaa
06-23-2009, 02:12 PM
It all gets thrown out. (http://www.rebelmodel.com/tsa/Fofana.pdf) Illegal search and seizure.

An interesting tidbit from that court opinion:


The court found that the screening agency had a policy of
“encouraging agents to report the presence of ‘drugs
and U.S. currency’ to the U.S. Customs and Port police”
and cooperating with them to detect and report
such items. Id. at 1245. In fact, screening agents received
a $250 reward for doing so. (emphasis mine)

Kaa

Cuyahoga Chuck
06-23-2009, 02:12 PM
You know what I wish? I wish the Shoe Bomber hadn't used his shoes. I wish he'd tried to smuggle a bomb cleverly disguised as a squalling, inconsolable baby. Then maybe there's be a ban in place that made sense, and actually contributed to passenger comfort....

You need not wish. it's been done. At least, something close to that has been done.
An Arab terrorist residing in Ireland married a local beauty and inseminated her. Before she delivered he urged her to fly to his homeland to meet his family. He gave her a suitacse full of his belongings to carry along. He was to join her later.
Fortunately, the suitcase was examined closely and was found to be lined with a thin layer of Semtex all hooked up to destroy the plane in the air.
Too bad the Irish don't have the death penalty.

Kaa
06-23-2009, 02:15 PM
Your reliance on such a characterization of me shows the pausity of muscle in your arguements. You may think you are a one-line Socratic wonder but, I assure you that isn't so.

Oh, I am relieved. What about a two-line Socratic wonder, then? :D


I assume it will be worderously short, as usual.

Well, I'm not big on worderoisity :D But do tell, would you prefer me to be worderously long?

Kaa

2MeterTroll
06-23-2009, 02:46 PM
What ever else this discussion is its not Socratic its mostly pissing up a rope.

you got on one hand those to whom security is all and every thing should submit to the authority. and you got the other side that sees security as a myth and a means of control by the government on the population. one sees compliance as a duty and the other sees resistance as a duty. pretty much the same way our country began. only thing that made consensus then was when england started to do to the rich like washington as they where doing to the middle class. it only changes when the folks that are comfy and believe they are safe get confronted with the real deal.

in a Socratic discussion you would slowly have consensus; here all we have are entrenched ideals. that are about as likely to change from a single discussion as moose growing thumbs.

John of Phoenix
06-23-2009, 03:32 PM
Here's the audio of the interrogation. (http://www.aclu.org/safefree/general/39922res20090618.html)

I have think Ron Paul would laugh his ass off at this. I did.

I wonder what Steve's next encounter with TSA will be like. Think he's suddenly on any list?

2MeterTroll
06-23-2009, 06:58 PM
Oh ya he's on a list. imagine being reasonable and asking for clarification of his right to answer the questions posed.

pretty funny i am sure someones going to burn for this and it aint gonna be him.

Cuyahoga Chuck
06-23-2009, 07:51 PM
What ever else this discussion is its not Socratic its mostly pissing up a rope.

you got on one hand those to whom security is all and every thing should submit to the authority. and you got the other side that sees security as a myth and a means of control by the government on the population. one sees compliance as a duty and the other sees resistance as a duty. pretty much the same way our country began. only thing that made consensus then was when england started to do to the rich like washington as they where doing to the middle class. it only changes when the folks that are comfy and believe they are safe get confronted with the real deal.


in a Socratic discussion you would slowly have consensus; here all we have are entrenched ideals. that are about as likely to change from a single discussion as moose growing thumbs.

The airport is a place of transit. Lots of people going lots of places and most are in a hurry. Anyone who sets up shop there to test the constitutionality of the place is a first water jerk.
The TSA workers are an easy mark. They're not cops, have no weapons. They are more like old fashioned train conductors than anything else. They have to go thru' a prepared routine and have to do it quickly to maintain the flow of people.
This jerk picked one out and decided to get up his nose. Because he got a rude response he wants to become the Joan of Arc of mistreated airline passengers.
I hope he gets all the exposure he craves so the next time he shows up at an airport they will know him and be ready for him.
May he live in interesting times.

Tylerdurden
06-23-2009, 07:54 PM
Tell us more about train conductors Chuckie? Were there airlines when you were a kid?

2MeterTroll
06-23-2009, 08:03 PM
He Already does, As do we.

Captain Blight
06-23-2009, 08:11 PM
.
I hope he gets all the exposure he craves so the next time he shows up at an airport they will know him and be ready for him.
And how, pray, would security and justice be furthered by harassing one man whose only crime--and even the TSA agrees there was no actual crime, as such-- was refusing to bend the knee or bow the head?

How does society at large benefit?

John of Phoenix
06-23-2009, 08:18 PM
If anything, I think the TSA people have been given the impression by the effects of 9/11 that they have much more power than they actually have.

A pull on the collar (or two) is a good thing.

Captain Intrepid
06-23-2009, 08:49 PM
Having now listened to the audio recording, all the authorities involved are idiots. There were three people, one of them a law enforcement officer, who all refused to acknowledge his request for a clarification of the law. He remained polite the entire time, and simply kept on repeating his statement "I do not understand the law. I'm asking you as a law enforcement officer if I am legally required to answer the question." To which the usual response was a variation on "Just answer the question." or "that doesn't matter." A clarification of one's rights always matters. All that was required was a yes or no.

In fact, one of the people involved stated on tape (paraphrased) "You are suspicious to me because you refuse to answer the question." Case law states that refusal to consent to a search does not constitute probable cause. It would naturally follow that refusal to answer a question would also not constitute suspicious behaviour. Instant obedience to authority is instilled in many of us from a very young age, and wether or not refusal to answer a question is polite, the rights at the core of the issue it are more important than anyone's mere convenience.

Phillip Allen
06-23-2009, 09:42 PM
its gratifing to see so many people agree on this

Captain Blight
06-23-2009, 10:00 PM
In fact, one of the people involved stated on tape (paraphrased) "You are suspicious to me because you refuse to answer the question." Case law states that refusal to consent to a search does not constitute probable cause. It would naturally follow that refusal to answer a question would also not constitute suspicious behaviour. Can you (for the sake of my laziness) cite precedent? Is this part of the Terry v. Ohio continuum?

Captain Intrepid
06-23-2009, 10:02 PM
It's been a while since I took that intro course to law, and it would have been a canadian precedent, so it may not be applicable to the US, so I'd have to look for the precedent. I'll see if i can dig something up though.

Keith Wilson
06-23-2009, 10:09 PM
Having now listened to the audio recording, all the authorities involved are idiots. I entirely agree. I expect they are going to get into a lot of trouble, although maybe not as much as they deserve. As much as I hate to agree with Mark, ;) he's dead right on this one.

paladin
06-23-2009, 10:46 PM
I just happen to know a couple of folks living near me that are such employees. The closest thing that I can relate is an instance when I came back from Vietnam after the first year, just before I went to work elsewhere. My granddad and great granddad were Territorial Marshalls in Indian Territories.....I considered law enforcement. I signed up as a deputy sheriff and was sent to school.....
A very large percentage of those in the academy did not have a high school dip[loma, but they wanted to carry a gun and drive a patrol car.....they were not, as a whole, the brightest and best. Imagine spending 90 days at an academy and then after graduation being in the basement of the police dept and have the idiots challenge you to a fast draw contest, or use blanks pushed down on a block of beeswax and shooting at each other. Luckily after numerous abuses, Oklahoma changed the law and you had 120 days to get a GED or terminated and then back to school....by then I was long gone...I lasted 3 months.....
The local fellows are a couple of the local high school dropouts that flunked the police exams too many times or something...I know they are both rejects and walk around in uniform wearing Sam Brown belts and all the rigging but no firearm.....

John of Phoenix
06-24-2009, 10:26 AM
Can you (for the sake of my laziness) cite precedent? Is this part of the Terry v. Ohio continuum?

Wikipedia:(very last sentence) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consent_searches)
In United States v. Fuentes, the court found the “[m]ere refusal to consent to a stop or search does not give rise to reasonable suspicion or probable cause.”

Here's the Fuentes case (http://openjurist.org/105/f3d/487) with mention of Terry v. Ohio

Also on the revocation of the consent to search (isn't the law tricky!)

Revoking Consent
Once consent to search is given, an individual may withdraw consent with an “unequivocal act or statement of withdrawal.” Consent may be withdrawn by statements, actions, or a combination of statements and actions. In United States v. Bily, the court found that Bily's statement to the agents of “That’s enough, I want you to stop,” was a revocation of consent. And in United States v. Ho, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit found that Ho's attempts to retrieve his portfolio from the officer during a search constituted a revocation of his earlier consent to search. In this decision the court recognized his acts constituted a valid revocation of consent.[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consent_searches#cite_note-Holcomb_2005-2)
However, the revocation of consent must clearly be a statement revoking consent: an expression of impatience or dislike is not sufficient to terminate consent.[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consent_searches#cite_note-Holcomb_2005-2) For example, in United States v. Gray, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit found that Gray did not revoke consent with the statements “[t]his is ridiculous,” and “how long [is] the search going to take.” The district court found that while Gray and his passenger had made “protests to leave,” “there was no specific request to leave, and under the circumstance,... [the officer] was reasonable in continuing the search.”

Tylerdurden
06-24-2009, 11:10 AM
I entirely agree. I expect they are going to get into a lot of trouble, although maybe not as much as they deserve. As much as I hate to agree with Mark, ;) he's dead right on this one.

Thanks, Your a good man as their are several others that would burn babies before admitting something like that.

Captain Intrepid
06-24-2009, 11:20 AM
Wikipedia:(very last sentence) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consent_searches)
In United States v. Fuentes, the court found the “[m]ere refusal to consent to a stop or search does not give rise to reasonable suspicion or probable cause.”


Thankyou! I thought I was going insane when I couldn't find that. I knew I'd seen it... :)

John of Phoenix
06-24-2009, 01:34 PM
Thank you, Mr Teetsel, I shall disseminate this information to people who may have need of it.
Sadly, more and more, I think we ALL need information like this.

And, please call me John.

Keith Wilson
06-24-2009, 01:45 PM
Thanks, Your a good man as their are several others that would burn babies before admitting something like that. You're welcome. It's true - some police and other police-like officials (not all) are total *ssholes, way too fond of power. The job unfortunately attracts some people with that temperament. We need strong mechanisms to keep them within proper bounds.

Tylerdurden
06-24-2009, 01:55 PM
You're welcome. It's true - some police and other police-like officials (not all) are total *ssholes, way too fond of power. The job unfortunately attracts some people with that temperament. We need strong mechanisms to keep them within proper bounds.


Agreed, But the mechanisms is us.;)