Back in April, I noted the story of Steve Bierfeldt, who works for Ron Paul’s Campaign for Liberty, and who was detained by TSA officials at the St. Louis airport after he was found carrying cash and Ron Paul literature.
Today’s Washington Times notes that the TSA has changed it’s rules in light of the what happened to Bierfeldt:
An angry aide to Rep. Ron Paul, an iPhone and $4,700 in cash have forced the Transportation Security Administration to quietly issue two new rules telling its airport screeners they can only conduct searches related to airplane safety.
In response, the American Civil Liberties Union is dropping its lawsuit on behalf of Steve Bierfeldt, the man who was detained in March and who recorded the confrontation on his iPhone as TSA and local police officers spent half an hour demanding answers as to why he was carrying the money through Lambert-St. Louis International Airport.
The new rules, issuedin September and October, tell officers “screening may not be conducted to detect evidence of crimes unrelated to transportation security” and that large amounts of cash don’t qualify as suspicious for purposes of safety.
“We had been hearing of so many reports of TSA screeners engaging in wide-ranging fishing expeditions for illegal activities,” said Ben Wizner, a staff lawyer for the ACLU, pointing to reports of officers scanning pill-bottle labels to see whether the passenger was the person who obtained the prescription as one example.
He 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.
Good.
November 11th, 2009 at 6:26 pm
It’s certainly a mystery to me as to what “other laws” this individual was suspected of violating.
You know: except for supporting a politician who actually has read and attempts to follow the Constitution.
November 11th, 2009 at 6:36 pm
So let’s test this ostensibly sensible rule change. What if in the course of a routine search of a carry-on bag — one performed at random — TSA officers discover millions of dollars in 100-dollar bills, not a mere four grand? OK?
Then what if the millions appear to be counterfeit? Still OK?
Then what if the TSA folk find child porn? No go?
Then what if they find a bloody body part — say a severed hand? Can’t call the cops, only keep the guy off the airplane.
Finally, if they can’t bust you for what they find in searches incidental to their safety mission, what precludes dope smugglers from just carrying 10 kilos of heroin in their carry-ons rather than trying to hide it? If busted, the evidence would have to be suppressed, right?
I must say I don’t know the answers to these questions. And I’m not eager to see TSA people fishing for crimes. But rules need to be sensible.
November 11th, 2009 at 7:16 pm
Well, John, let’s talk about the facts at hand. My understanding is that the reportable cash transaction amount is $10,000. So $4000 doesn’t seem suspicious.
You’re making no distinction between what is suspicious, and things that plainly are crimes.
November 11th, 2009 at 9:51 pm
I think the intent is to restrict what they search for….not what they can do should they find something illegal during a search. So child porn, or evidence of an obvious crime (murder!) or extremely bad counterfeiting (gray area) would all be detainable as part of a citizen’s arrest for example, but not what they can use their search for.
Otherwise, they could go through your laptop or personal papers to determine what crimes may have been committed, or your iPod to determine if you have violated copyright.
I think if a cop is in “hot pursuit” of a criminal suspect and they chase him through a stranger’s house and see evidence of a crime, then they can use that as grounds for arrest. The evidence was obtained in a pursuit nature, not as part of a fishing epedition. So the same could be said here. A government rep, such as a home inspector wouldn’t need a warrant to cover their witnessing illegal activities or evidence viewed during an inspection, just because it wasn’t covered by a warrant.
I think it comes down to preventing fishing for crimes or unreasonable search and seizure or detainment.
Besides if you read the linked article it clearly states: “The new directives don’t affect a situation where a TSA officer, in the performance of a regular screening, comes across evidence of illegal activity, such as a bag of illicit drugs.”
I applaud this sensible policy and it’s a real shame that trouble of the nature this fella had wasn’t prevented in the first place.
November 12th, 2009 at 10:46 am
As I recall one of the hallmarks of the September 11th hijackers is they paid for their tickets with cash — this is very unusual.
You can’t have it both ways, criticizing folks for not connecting the dots and then telling folks they can’t round up and connect dots.
Let’s go back to the original language of the 4th Amendment. It prohibits “unreasonable searches and seizures”. What is reasonable is contextual and you are asking folks who don’t have a law degree to make some pretty insightful and fine distinctions. Give them some tools and give them a break.