Man detained, threatened and abused by TSA for flying with $4700 in cash
Here's a recording of Steve Bierfeldt, a US citizen who tried to board a domestic airplane while carrying $4700 in cash, and was detained by the TSA and subjected to abusive language and threats when he said that he would only answer the TSA's inquiries ("Where do you work?" "Why are you carrying cash?") if he was required to by law. The TSA agents threatened to turn him over to the DEA. He was returning from a Ron Paul event in St Louis, MO, and worked for the campaign. The cash on his person arose from sales of t-shirts and stickers at the event.
The transport cops in the audio recording of his interrogation actually tell him if he's not guilty he has nothing to fear.
Exactly what security threat does cash pose to an airplane? Are suicide bombers wont to carry a lot of liquid capital in case they flub it and need to bribe their way out?
Cue clueless commenter who says, "Well what did he expect when he told the law enforcement person that he expected to be informed of his rights and legal obligations before he would answer his questions?" After all, constitutional liberties are only there to be admired, not exercised. In 3...2...1.
Man detained and harassed at airport for carrying CASH! (via Dispatches from the Culture Wars)
the latest
latest episodes
Well what did he expect when he told the law enforcement person that he expected to be informed of his rights and legal obligations before he would answer his questions?
actually, contraband smuggling has two critical components: getting the contraband in and getting the money out. for such a small sum it's not super likely that's he's trafficing in arms or drugs or anything, but large amounts of cash are definitely a red flag for law enforcement, and in the past have been seized pending investigation (but that's more like the 10k+ range, i believe).
Again, a very misleading and deceptive headline, boingboing. The fellow was CLEARLY detained for refusing to answer perfectly legitimate questions -- just like the infants who rant on and on about why they don't have to produce a receipt when exiting big-box retailers. These are not even the kinds of questions that imply one is a criminal, but the moment refusal to answer questions becomes a factor, one is overtly exhibiting criminally-suspicious behavior. I have no sympathy for the cash-carryer here.
I can't believe that the commentator asked in disbelief if the detained man looked like a terrorist. I'd be curious to know what he thinks a terrorist should look like.
The picture there says "Fox". Am I really expected to click play on that?
Wait, this is a foxnews.com show? The people who spent the better part of the past decade feeding into the fear and panic are now surprised at the loss of liberty?
Doesn't make what happened any less ridiculous or frightening. But hearing Frankenstein's fear of his own monster is kind of laughable.
True colors show near the end when the put the picture of the young guy up and ask "is that the face of a terrorist?"
$4700 really isn't all that much money... That's less than a months pay for most professionals.
Suspicious behavior is not CRIMINAL BEHAVIOR, no matter how much high school dropouts in ill-fitting uniforms try to make it so. Their hysteria is unwarranted, but I bet not uncommon in those little rooms they use for professional bullying. The TSA is getting to be a joke. You're talking about a bunch of bored idiots who never should have seen that amount of money as a threat -- I took more than that in cash on a cruise once, and my last trip to Europe. Had anyone stopped me, I would have laughed at them. I will not tolerate being treated like a criminal in my own allegedly “free” country. I applaud Judge Andrew Napolitano for reporting on this and interviewing the young man.
If this federal bureaucratic stranglehold is fine with you, might as well put the Constitution on your front doorstep and wipe your feet on it daily. “If you have nothing to hide, why don’t you answer” was also used by the Spanish Inquisition.
Connery F.
If you add together all the bacteria on $4700 worth of cash compounded by the air quality of a plane cabin, that's one scary bio terrorism scenario.
My guess is that the stop was more about drug enforcement laws. This story is no different than many others over the past few years, except for two things 1) he wasn't poor so it was not his life savings and 2) they gave his money back.
FOX News blames Obama in 3... 2... 1...
As for ablestmage, can you quote the laws that allow the TSA to detain people on a whim? Where's the law that say that if you're carrying cash, they get to hold you until you satisfy them?
More to the point, can you quote a law that tells us where they can hold someone without even telling them what law they're holding them under?
The TSA gets to detain people without warrants? Really? "It sounds like a legitimate question to some n00b on Boing Boing" is not sufficient reason for any tool with a government ID to yank you off the street and hold you against your will
@ ablestmage
the moment refusal to answer questions becomes a factor, one is overtly exhibiting criminally-suspicious behavior.
He said he would answer anything he was legally required to. Everything else is constitutionally protected. Are you one of those "constitutional rights are only for the guilty" people?
How much are they "law enforcement persons" if they have to call the police to ask additional questions?
These clowns seem to be nothing more than a bunch of power hungry thugs.
But yes, funny that about Fox. And funny they didn't start screaming about privacy-eroding practices of Obama administration.
Please step away from the fact that Fox reported the incident and look it on the face. The behavior of the TSA was thuggish and unnecessary. The actions were unnecessary and like unconstitutional. Likely, the recording of the event without permission of all the participants was also illegal in the great state of Misery. Certainly, it would not be admissible as evidence.
But, in the end, isn't this what most anthropologists would predict when you give the federal government complete authority in the form of the TSA? Doesn't anyone else remember growing up in the 80s and seeing Russia as the great enemy because you couldn't travel or engage in commerce without your papers? Remember?
We have become that. Look in your basement conference room at work and you will find a room full of 24 year-old accountants going through your books. These SOX Nazis are nothing more that a government inspection of your activities. They have been there for several years, yet nothing from the Sarbanes-Oxley act prevented the most egregious collapse of financing since the depression.
But it does extend control and soft pressure which eventually yields to overt pressure.
And we stand at the precipice of the biggest expansion of these powers into our daily lives through the subtle takeover of the banking system. Again, the government has used the exact same logic as the TSA. "We don't want to take it over, we just want to keep you safe. You won't be safe if you don't let us manage this. Please trade your liberty for safety."
In the end, we all know the TSA doesn't make us any safer. It's a sham, but it does extend government control over our lives. The banking takeover will be the same. It won't produce any more financial security, but it will allow the government to control the flow of capital. If this wasn't the case, why won't the government let banks pay back TARP funds? (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123879833094588163.html)
The only thing more scary that individuals controlling their own money in a chaotic way, is the government. Personally, it isn't so much the feds I worry about. It's the Rod Bagovich's and the states. Those nuts could really be dangerous
Sorry for the rant, but I just see the creeping influence in the banking system and I look at the TSA and airport security as an analogue to what will happen.
just like the infants who rant on and on about why they don't have to produce a receipt when exiting big-box retailers
Either cops are law enforcement officers, in which case they have to follow the law when enforcing it. Or they're thugs, empowered by gun and gang to do as they please. The whole "rule of law" thing has worked well for us so far, and it saddens me to see people like you suggesting we can dispense with it so casually.
I agree people who exercise rights just for the thrill of opposition can be annoying. But if we are going to make being annoying a crime, I think there are much better places to start than Best Buy's front door. Regardless, new laws come from legislative bodies, not mall cops and store managers.
i wish every phone had that app that allowed the voice memo to come on with a good jiggle.
As to him not wanting to give over his employer's name, it may have something to do with a sheriff's memo that went out in St. Louis considering members of the Campaign for Liberty as militia members. That and knowing the recording would make them seem like total douches.
To the Fox haters, Judge Andrew Napolitano is thankfully not Bill O'Reilly.
It's obvious this falls under TSA pervue, clearly he was planning to bribe to pilot to crash the plane into a building.
It seems much of the time it is the Barney Fifes in law enforcement that are a greater threat to our liberties than the law itself. It is important to note that the story ends with an FBI agent entering the room and abruptly releasing our hapless hero to board his flight without further questioning. What is not clear is if the agent was interceding in or observing and directing this little fishing expedition.
Trying again, this time logged in!
@#3, "Kiss the shiny, shiny boots of leather" is a Lou Reed song, not a Constitutionally mandated requirement of the citizenry.
Thanks for playing. Vanna has some lovely parting gifts for you!
@Erlik--
They didn't mention Obama by name, but toward the very end of the clip the dude in the middle of the panel says that "when you have government controlled capitalism, it's turning more into fascism". It's not a direct shot at Obama, but it certainly seems that they're trying to suggest that this behavior is new.
That said, in my view it's far better to have a media outlet being critical of the ruling party than running its propaganda. Outside of the change rhetoric, Obama hasn't done much to actually roll back Bush's unconstitutional excesses. Perhaps Fox News will be performing a social good by forcing the government to answer to these sorts of abuses... at least until the mid-term elections next year.
This man may have put up a bit of a fuss, but it's a damn good thing that he did. If a police officer started asking all kinds of questions, the first thing I would ask is, "Am I being charged with something?" followed by, "I want to speak to a lawyer." We have these rights so that any fool with a badge can't just get his way by taking advantage of authority. The TSA is exactly that type of abuser: asking arbitrary, sometimes personal questions; detaining people without reason, warrant, or probably cause; and pretending to have an authority that they don't.
Unlawful detainment is a tort liability. People sue police units for it all of the time. It's about time somebody started suing the TSA.
There is no legal requirement to declare the fact of or source of cash under $10k. In the video the TSA claims he would have to fill out a form for that much cash but this isn't true. So to claim, as they did that this much cash sends up a red flag that there may be somebody connected to drugs or terrorism is as legally relevant as " I saw a black teenager in a nice car, must be involved in drugs"
just sue the lying morons.
I'm really hoping this is clear and doesn't sound childish...
Just because it'd be "easier" to tell them doesn't make it right. My freedoms are not conditional to make some person's job easier.
Actually they are libertarian types that have been suggesting for a while that the "free market" in the US is no such thing but actually corporatism which is also known as fascism. Instead of the liberal use of the word fascism when they probably mean despotism. Although I'm sure they aren't too happy about the increased government influence in the market.
So what exactly are your rights with regard to the TSA?
I was searched and questioned once, and while I felt pretty sure I wasn't legally obligated to answer any questions, I also suspected they could kick me off the flight if I refused.
gmcmullen @ 13:
"...the dude in the middle of the panel says that "when you have government controlled capitalism, it's turning more into fascism"."
Dang, and that dude almost got it right!
"When you have government controlled by corporations, it's turning more into fascism".
There, fixed it for him.
@20 thank you
and people need to stop going to ron paul events
#10 "just like the infants who rant on and on about why they don't have to produce a receipt when exiting big-box retailers"
So ... I guess that attempt-to-control-by-ridiculing thing has worked out well for you in the past?
I see no reason why someone shouldn't have to present a receipt every 10 yards on the way to their car, as well. After all, they might be up to something. Just because they've spent a lot of money doesn't mean it couldn't be a ruse.
Some people easily accomodate to anything they're asked to do. ANYTHING. Are you one of them?
Cory, comment #1 strikes me as being a sarcastic rhetorical question rather than clueless. However, I will admit it isn't exactly clear if this is the case.
just when did the usual mission creep move the TSA goons into junior deputy cadet DEA snoops anyway? More and more they seem to be looking to bust people for drugs - which have nothing to do with the safety of the flight. And why don't the imbecile apologists for TSA criminality also have them check their income tax returns before boarding , the same logic applies.
I like when the tsa thug asks "are you from this planet?" that's great, and they say he's playing games.
This has made me very upset. Very, very upset. First, it's nobody's fucking business how much cash I take on a plane as long as it's less than $10,000. And that's probably only an issue if you're going through customs, ie, crossing boarders. Otherwise, I can have as much damn cash on me as I want. Since when is it illegal to carry cash???? Second, the minute they say, "we're going to the police station," you ask, "am I being detained?" and when they say "yes," you say, "on what charges?" and you refuse to say anything else until you have a lawyer present. The minute you're detained, you're no longer just a guy getting on an airplane, you're a prisoner with rights.
god, I hope he sues the shit out of those cops. I really, really do.
Yeh. I had that experience crossing a boarder once. Ornery bugger. Personally, I don't think there's any shame in not owning your own home.
The clip audio really doesn't do this incident justice. The full audio is here. http://www.dailynewscaster.com/2009/04/02/audio-full-version-steve-bierfeldt-detained-and-questioned-by-st-louis-tsa/
@#19
They actually threaten to "take him downtown" and also ask him if they are going to have to put him in handcuffs. Of course they wouldn't answer his question because the answer was "no, you are not legally required to answer my question," and they wanted obedience.
What nobody has yet mentioned is that the Supreme Court rulings of the last 10 years (the last 5 being more damaging) gives the police the right to detain you without any real probable cause. If you have no ID you go to jail. If you look suspicious you go to jail. He can sue, but has effectively no recourse. $4700 is not a lot of money in New York, but to a 22k a year cop in St.Louis you might as well be Bloomberg. Welcome to the New America. And it ain't gonna get better soon...These are for the most part Republican appointments. Carter did not get to pick a justice, and the Bushes received 3 appointments. That idiot Thomas was put on the bench at the ripe old age of 42. Unless there are amendments put forward by Congress (unlikely) we are looking at another 25+ years of Neocon majority. Bush may be out but his legacy lives on. And on. Your rights as a citizen were taken away long ago.
The $10,000 limit only applies if you are leaving the country with it. While it might not be smart to be walking around with a cashloaf that size, there are no domestic restrictions on the amount of money you wish to carry in your pocket when traveling or otherwise. Police are naturally suspicious of anyone who might have large sums of cash on their person because they have been trained to expect that it must have come from criminal activity. They simply can't understand why someone who is honest would have that kind of spending money on their person.
I believe in the US that large amounts of cash can be seized (I think again above $10k) under some sort of proceeds of crime laws. That doesn't actually make you guilty, but the cash itself. Didn't BB make a point on this with a trucker who had $30k+ on him having it seized with no recourse sometime last year?
#34 asks "Since when is it illegal to carry cash????" I would like to suggest that it happened about the same time we started accepting the predicate "as long as it's less than $10,000..."
This reminds me of the joke with the punchline, "we've already established that you are a whore, the rest is just quibbling over price."
(In case it's unclear, I'm not calling you a whore)
If you add together all the bacteria on $4700 worth of cash compounded by the air quality of a plane cabin, that's one scary bio terrorism scenario.
Yeah, but think of all the cocaine coating it.
Tsa is a joke just costing tax payers millions of dollars
We are lucky the Media is willing to spread these stories, otherwise there'd be no sense of outrage.... oh wait.
Alright, I can't figure out how to log in to my account so I'll post this anonymously (the name is tenlow if you care)
@#4 I never show my receipt when I'm leaving one of those stores. I just paid for my goods. They now belong to me. Unless they saw me steal something, they have no right to search my bag. The theory goes that if I've done nothing wrong, I've got nothing to hide. But that invalidates the 4th amendment. The truth of the matter is if they have no proof I've done something wrong, they've got no reason to suspect me. Presumed guilt is not a tool for the police to use to intimidate us into submission. The burden is on them to prove we have done something wrong without simply arresting us first and waiting until they find out why they've arrested us later.
Obama hasn't done much to actually roll back Bush's unconstitutional excesses.
Unless you count closing Guantanamo, stopping torture, reversing the bans on abortion funding and stem cell research.........
not to mention all the things he hasn't done at all that Cheney had in the pipeline.
http://www.alternet.org/rights/133273/do_the_secret_bush_memos_amount_to_treason_top_constitutional_scholar_says_yes/?page=entire
Sometimes you have to take the Al Jaffee approach.
"Why are you carrying $4700 in cash?"
"Because I wouldn't trust anyone else to carry it for me."
@23-
Agreed. On the little landing card that I've filled out so many times now just prior to landing in the US, it only asks you to declare carried cash if it's in excess of $10,000.
Someone asks you why you have 4700$
Only correct answer:
I like to rub my penis on it in the privacy of my own home.
Why doesn't the goverment take the money their wasting with TSA and give it to the people in Detroit
PJK @ 34 - The minute you're detained, you're no longer just a guy getting on an airplane, you're a prisoner with rights.
I remember when non-detained people had rights too.
good times.
Civil liberties have become little more than a sick joke anymore. Earlier this year, my 8-year-old son was interrogated by police (with no parental notification) and suspended for 5 days for talking about shooting zombies at recess. No adults heard him, just 3 other kids. The police also searched my home supposedly under the auspices of the Patriot Act.
I'm building a protest/ parody /legislative advocacy webiste, but it's just barely up. I'll have the full story there soon.
www.nozombies.org - Subscribe and get the full story as soon as I post it.
"#1 posted by Anonymous, April 5, 2009 7:30 AM
Large sums of money are taken of signs of drug trafficking."
Isn't that nice in the richest capitalist country?
LMAO The US "Land of the Free" has become a sad joke...
Let's hope Pres. Obama brings changes....
I am thankful for people like this man who didn't just roll over and take the easy way out. It's bad enough that we have lost too many liberties in the name of national security, citizens shouldn't be expected to voluntarily give up even more. I'm afraid that too many of us lament what's taken place since 9/11 but sigh and accept it when confronted.
My first post. If I find I want to respond to something I'll take the time to create an account.
and @ ablestmage.... he doesn't refuse to answer..... he asks he he is legally required to answer... NOT the same thing and NO those questions were not legitimate.
Furthermore, me too, I prefer cash to plastic. Traveling often in third world countries or in rural regions of developed ones, plastic has no value... so as long as I'm under the legal limit, it's none of their business (TSA, Police or other...)
I know someone who recently bought a car (entirely legitimately) with £7000 in cash. That would have been around $14,000 in your terms, before the crash.
So, hypothetically if he'd taken a domestic flight in order to buy the car, he would have been suspected of TERRRURRRR or DRRRRGSSS?
:(
I'm sad that there are even ANY comments on the tsa's side of this. Sure he's not voluntarily giving up information (incriminating himself) last I checked that was one of the protections we as citizens have.
Remember this is supposed to be the land of the free. Give me liberty or give me death used to be another of our country's sloagans.
Now it's more like give me saftey or give me detention.
Welcome to the authoritarian states of america, where soon we'll all be wearing clear plastic clothes so the tsa can protect us from those with pockets full of paper.
I am NOT a fan of FOX's Hyperbole but in this case they are spot on. The TSA are acting like jackbooted Nazis, exaggerating their authority and illegaly detaining this person for carrying cash. Cash is legal tender after all, not checks, not credit cards, it is stated on every bill as legal tender. So where does the TSA get the right to effectively kidnap a legal citizen, detain and browbeat him for just possessing cash? These TSA agents should be prosecuted for abuse of public office and powers, kidnapping and required to publicly apologize for their transgressions before being fired.
The TSA has responded to this on their public and official blog...
http://www.tsa.gov/blog/2009/04/incident-at-st-louis-international.html
I put my (very long) comments there, so won't bother to repeat them.
(As to the receipt checkers at non-membership retailers, I will show them my receipt but I will NOT let them inspect my (now) personal possessions in the bag...)
Sounds to me like they were fishing for a bribe.
It is part of the US Treasury strategy to stop money laundering and bulk cash smuggling out of the US. While $10,000 or more is where the law comes into play, the law does not require it to be in one place. Part can be in your wallet and the remainder can be in luggage, handbag, backpack, hidden in a shoe, or even with a fellow traveler, etc. $4700 is unusual and is suspicious, especially when the person carrying it will not cooperate. If two people are each carrying $6000 and plan to meet up at some location for the $12,000 to be smuggled out of the US, then each is engaged in an illegal activity.
While the law is to prevent illegal money leaving the US, many investigative stops are done on domestic flights before one can get to a place where it is easy to leave the country.
US Treasury has made an effort to train TSA and other personnel to make stops domestically before the person reaches an international airport or border location.
I sold a car in Puerto Rico once and was paid in twenties. Still in the bank wrappers, in case you were wondering whether it was drug money, ha.
Yes, $6000 does indeed make a satisfyingly large wad of twenties. Why do you ask?
My point is that there are plenty of legitimate reasons to have large amounts of cash. The TSA should not be restricting interstate commerce in this manner -- especially since this has nothing whatsoever to do with transport security; it is clearly outside their mandate.
I love you, Anonymous #35.
anonymous at 61, I hope it happens to you someday.
Then you'll get it.
From http://www.tsa.gov/blog/2009/04/incident-at-st-louis-international.html
"As a general rule"? Hunh? What the heck does that mean? Are there any lawyers out there familiar with American law in this matter?Bob sez:
And, to flog a dead horse: 'Bob' points out that they'll investigate the "The tone and language used by the TSA employee [which] was inappropriate."
The rights and the law isn't a problem, but the fact that the TSA employee swore...
Sigh...
It's great how it took a white male to be harassed by the TSA for Fox news to finally see the problem with valuing security over freedom.
This is why hall monitors should not have badges.
The sign-in system is down so I can't post as Ultan.
The Bank Secrecy Act of 1970, Money Laundering Control Act of 1986 and later laws such as title III of the Patriot Act require filing currency transaction reports (CTRs) for any cash or negotiable paper amount over $10,000 under all circumstances. In the case of financial institutions (broadly defined), purchases of negotiable instruments of over $3,000 in a day must be reported and they must file a "suspicious transaction report" (SAR) for any pattern of transactions that might be "structured" to evade the reporting requirements.
Wikipedia article on "Suspicious activity report" says:
"FinCEN requires a SAR report to be filed by a financial institution when the financial institution suspects: insider abuse by an employee; violations of law aggregating over $5,000 or more where a subject can be identified; violations of law aggregating over $25,000 or more regardless of a potential subject; transactions aggregating $5,000 or more that involve potential money laundering or violations of the Bank Secrecy Act; computer intrusion; or when a financial institution knows that a customer is operating as an unlicensed money services business. ...
Unauthorized disclosure of a SAR filing is a federal criminal offense.[1] In other words, any bank employee who has a suspicion is trained to only discuss the suspicion with their supervisors, and not anyone else, including the customer who is under suspicion and coworkers. The fact that an SAR has been filed is also supposed to be a secret.
An individual or organization is precluded from discovering the existence of a SAR filed that includes their name. Financial institutions undertake an investigation process prior to filing a SAR to assure that the information reported is appropriate, complete, and accurate. This process will often include review by financial investigators, management and/or attorneys prior to filing. ...
Parts of a SAR ...
Part II Contains any name, address, social security or tax ID's, birthdate, drivers license numbers, passport numbers, occupation and phone numbers of all parties involved with the suspicious activity."
The penalties for failing to file CTRs or SARs start with forfeiture of all property traceable to the defendant, plus high fines and lengthy prison sentences. The Sec. of the Treasury can exempt financial institutions from the reporting requirements, and most of the big Wall Street firms have such exemptions when trading for their own accounts.
These financial reporting laws are the infrastructure of despotism. If this guy at the airport hadn't had an FBI agent intervene on his behalf he easily could have been totally ruined under these laws, even without technically falling under the apparent reporting requirements.
When exiting a big box store, you have every right to refuse to show a receipt. The store may use all legal remedies at their disposal, which is nothing.
When flying with a suspicious amount of currency you have no legitimate reason to be carrying, you have every right to refuse to answer questions you are not legally obligated to answer.
The TSA has every right to use whatever legal remedies to your stubbornness at their disposal, which would include arresting and holding you for no more than 24 hours.
The somewhat larger story here is that the republican party is splitting. Let's say a libertarian/conservative/evangelical threesome. You can expect to see libertarians on Fox, and I welcome it (so long as they're not really in power).
Breitbart, on maher's real time, suggested that the libertarian wing was the future of Rep's:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SwwgWeKRZwo
And the split they don't get yet is their basic demographic--white, southern, evangelicals--and that party can't win elections. Same ref:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v5CsVHmkTmc
I love the southern drawl that goes great with "are u from this planet?"
"do u hear banjos playing?"
"The TSA has every right to use whatever legal remedies to your stubbornness at their disposal, which would include arresting and holding you for no more than 24 hours."
and you can't see the nonsense in this statement?
from the TSA:
"Movements of large amounts of cash through the checkpoint may be investigated by law enforcement authorities if criminal activity is suspected. As a general rule, passengers are required to cooperate with the screening process. Cooperation may involve answering questions about their property, including why they are carrying a large sum of cash. A passenger who refuses to answer questions may be referred to appropriate authorities for further inquiry."
This really needs a lawsuit as quickly as possible.
@ foobar
I think this gets precisely at the point. NEITHER side is outside their legal limits. I would prefer that TSA asks why you're carrying thousands of dollars, AND that they are trained to be able to answer Mr. Bierfeldt's question:
"You are not legally required to answer. However, we are required to ask. Because one of TSA's missions is to limit the transfer of money tied to illegal activity, a refusal to answer will be taken as just cause for detainment."
"one of TSA's missions is to limit the transfer of money tied to illegal activity" How did that happen? What next?
"will be taken as just cause" Says who? Did a judge agree? Will TSA officials go to prison when this is overturned?
If prevention of money-laundering is a good reason to stop a passenger carrying the price of a fancy television, preventing bath-tubs accidents (which kill far more people than money-laundering) is a good reason to search everyone's home for potential problems. Why are the criminal activities of the very, very few considered good reason to overthrow basic Constitutional principles?
what a load of crap. Anyone wanting to move cash wil just use gold jewelry or Rolexes or whatever if they have criminal intent. This is just turning the TSA into tax enforcers and collectors and adding to their thug credential to increase intimidation.
@ tak
First, I agree that the agents didn't follow the rules. But what ARE the rules?
Just cause means:
1. Notice of rules being broken was given.
Your ref:
"Movements of large amounts of cash through the checkpoint may be investigated by law enforcement authorities if criminal activity is suspected."
2. Was this rule reasonable?
I say yes, and beyond your arguments against I'd say the TSA is unlikely to take the view that carrying $5k is not suspicious.
3. Did the police make an attempt to investigate both sides?
No, decidedly.
4. Was the investigation fair and objective?
This is what we're arguing. If you want to make a legal argument, frame it under fairness.
5. Was there proof of misconduct?
Yes.
6. Was the penalty appropriate?
Yes.
"just cause" is something that must meet tests of constitutional law. I'd say demanding to know about money under established law (the $10,000 limit) already is a non-starter. The whole thing needs to be dragged in front of a judge. Start letting random TSA flunkies decide what is "reasonable" and see where that leads.
I'm a poker player. This is a regular concern for me and for others; I've had to explain myself when I get screened.
My experience, and what I've heard from others, is that as long as you are upfront about the money, it is not an issue. You also have to obey the rules for declaring 10k or more.
If, however, you conceal the money and fail to declare it, or if you give the officers any lip, you will likely be detained and the money may be confiscated, to be returned months later.
The banking system isn't being "taken over". Hell, they've been extended credit that sure as hell has not been extended to the auto companies.
The banks destroyed themselves thru trading securities that they themselves lobbied to be deregulated by the government. They are broke. They are decimated. If they did not have their own men on the inside of the government,they would be out of business along with a great number of businesses and governments. We've given them trillions in guarantees and unprecedented freedom in how to spend it, considering we bought them.
We didn't "take them over". We are the majority stockholders, the angels with endless wallets that saved them and capitalism itself. We are the people. And we should exercise a great damned more control over them than we are. "Taken over" indeed. They took us over.
This is a thread discussing a similar incident on 2+2, the main online poker and gambling forum:
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/19/high-stakes-pl-nl/warning-high-stakes-travelers-398198/
Businessmen who are laundering money use the banks, not their wallets.
And if drugs were legal, what the hell would these guardians of all that is good do for a living?
You know: if I'm smart enough to move a TV past the cashier without paying, I am smart enough to move it past the door guard.
why do you have to be "up front" about something that is not their damned business in the first place?
Who decides how much is "suspicious"? Some mouth-breathing underwear sniffer with a tin badge?
Any lip? Some pin-head bully gets to decide what is "lip"?
Money confiscated without cause is theft.
People need to wake up: the witch is dead, all Shoe Boy's works can be safely dismantled. No need to grovel for your life any more. Or have you grown to like it?
good story in #82, guess the DEA Cartel is expanding into extortion and shakedown to cover the coming shortfalls in their drug profits.
If you're getting on a plane with an amount of money no reasonable person would feel safe carrying, it most certainly is the "damned business" of the airline, airport and relevant security personnel.
Carrying thousands of dollars in unmarked bills is not a safe thing to do.
There can be no dispute that this man was a danger to himself. There's no reasonable cause to fault the officers involved with finding out whether or not he was a danger to others.
yeah, right. Better put all them purdy wimmin-folk in burkhas too, after all , they're jist askin' fer it!
anonymous @ 68 -
What does that Banking stuff have to do with the Transportation Security Administration?
Securities fraud is not their job (though, admittedly, the SEC doesn't seem up to it these days). Catching known criminals and also people with guns and/or bombs IS.
Up until the 1960's, if you were NOT carrying cash in a strange town, you could be arrested for vagrancy.
they still do that. First they steal your money, then they arrest you for being broke.
foobar - nice troll.
http://kathmanduk2.wordpress.com/2009/03/11/texas-cops-illegally-detain-rob-black-motorists/
I've carried $5K in cash on many occasions, although never on an airplane. Stores (like antique or furniture stores) frequently give a fat discount for cash. Contractors love cash so that they can pay out their laborers. A small fundraiser or even the collection at church can put $5K in your pocket. It's really not very much money. Somebody muling money to the Caymans is going to have a lot more than that on them. And they're going to be on a boat, not a plane.
just more fear theatre.
This is no surprise at all, to anyone who has flown. The authority granted TSA has grown and grown, until we arrive at a pseudo-police 'authority' of intimidation.
General aviation is being threatened with TSA's "help" on multiple fronts. Would you believe they want to search, screen, watchlist-scan and "monitor" private aviation now? Soon, the program will creep down to light aircraft ... then, who knows, cars, trains?
Papers, please!
http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news/KeyCongressmanRaisesQuestionsAboutLASP_199936-1.html
Und vat izt dee purpose ov your travelz, consumar?!
http://www.securitymanagement.com/news/gao-tsa-needs-complete-risk-assessments-nations-commercial-trucking-and-bus-industries-005442
hah!
http://www.politico.com/blogs/anneschroeder/0409/Shenanigans_TSA_employees_AOK_with_lifting_the_DC_gun_ban.html
smell the rot
http://www.9news.com/news/article.aspx?storyid=113127&catid=339
http://www.aero-news.net/index.cfm?ContentBlockID=d1ad7c3a-335f-4904-abc9-e9e07211edb0
This recording was totally frightening. I don't know if I would be as fast on my feet if I was in the same situation... or if I might be as fast on the 'record' button.
@ #48 sworm
I am the governor of New York, and I need hookers.
Moral of the story: The police officer is not your friend. If you comply in good faith, it is entirely likely that they will use the information to pin you with a crime you did not commit.
"I won't answer without a lawyer" and "Am I free to go" are just about the only things that should come out of your mouth when dealing with a police officer.
Is it not amazing that the talking heads on FoxNews are now concerned about America "descending into fascism"? Where have they been for the last 8 years? Legalized torture, sending people into CIA's foreign "black" prisons, detaining people without due process (much less trial) for 5+ years, warrantless wide-scale wiretaps didn't seem to bother them.
I almost guarantee you if McCain had become president, no such news articles on personal freedoms would make it to air on Fox. And any articles of that type on other stations would be branded, as in the past, as "unpatriotic."
Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. --Benjamin Franklin
@Antinous
All those examples of situations in which one might reasonably be carrying $5k involve taking it from where it was obtained to where it would be used. Not randomly walking around with it as this guy was.
Look, we all know he was doing this for the express purpose of provoking the TSA into investigating him. We shouldn't be at all surprised that he succeeded.
If anything he's demonstrated that the agents were calm and collected in the face of someone being both an idiot and an asshole.
Not randomly walking around with it as this guy was.
Taking a plane trip is randomly walking around? What a madcap life you must lead.
foobar, read the article.
Look, we all know he was doing this for the express purpose of provoking the TSA into investigating him. We shouldn't be at all surprised that he succeeded.
I'd be surprised if you do.
If anything he's demonstrated that the agents were calm and collected in the face of someone being both an idiot and an asshole.
I disagree, but i certainly know the feeling.
I suspect the moderators do too.
(Frank from Virginia)
I think it is time we all start properly addressing comments about these folks as the Fucking Transportation Security Administration (FTSA).
Listen, I know this is off topic, but to #28:
When Obama leaves office in 4 or 8 years time, and we still have tens of thousands of troops in Iraq, more troops in Afghanistan than we do now, no reduction in the empire, further deterioration in the civil liberties/domestic spying situation, double digit inflation, and generally no more freedom than we had under Bush - there are going to be a lot of people who owe Ron Paul supporters a big apology.
There has been talk in the UK of "airport style security" at major train stations, and drug dogs are now a regular fixture on the network.
oy you should how crazy things get if you try to go through security with 2 - 3lb tubes of Owens Country Sausage in Original Flavor and Hot in your carry on. We can't get that here in Florida.
Or 2 boxes of an Ikea lamp in your checked luggage.
Cry, f y r gng t xprss n p-frnt dslk f wht y cnsdr cllss cmmnts, myb y shld jst dsbl cmmnts ntrly n yr psts.
Nt nly s t pr tct nd drm-qn blggng, t shws y hv n xplct bs twrds wht pnn y wnt t s n th cmmnts. Nt gd thng.
t's jst nt cl t nd pst wth "Lts s hw lng ntl sm lsr dsgrs wth m, 'cs knw 'm lwys rght, t h."
Crfl WghtdCmpnnCb, h'll hv y dsmvwld.
Bs n th cmmnts? Hr?
I've noticed TSA agents looking in people's wallets and thumbing through loose cash of travelers using the new millimeter wave scanners. Just one more freedom (to be secure in your own person) being whittled away.
We spent so much more time and money the last seven years looking for criminals among the traveling public while Govt ignored the criminals on Wall Street who were robbing the country blind and ruining our financial security. It's time to take back our civil liberties. I challenge citizens to get involved in this struggle for our constitutional freedoms!
Ha!
There was never any such thing as "a suspicious amount of cash", until the Reagan-era "anti-drug" laws made such so.
Before that, cash ws cash: only suspicious if it was found on you with some attending circumstances: like running down the street with it....
Yet another example of brand new laws, capable of removing your liberty & property, for what previously had not been an area of broad Governmental inquiry, AT ALL.
An ever-expanding sphere of behavior for which one may be jailed: behaviors which never before in history were considered to be sins, much less offenses carrying actual jail time or the forfeiture of property as penalities: and Americans, with their professed love of liberty (and thus of all things liber-al?) applaud and "understand the need for these laws".
I say, welcome to dictatorship, tyranny, and despotism,served up salami-style.
As to Obama: no change in policies, will result in no change of outcomes.
Stop dreaming: change the policies, already....
antinous: Unless you count closing Guantanamo, stopping torture, reversing the bans on abortion funding and stem cell research.........
Guantanamo isn't closed yet, and last I heard, they haven't decided what to do with some of its inmates. They may continue holding them idefinitely without charging them with anything. Also, since Guantanamo has become such a PR nightmare, all the "enemy combatants" are now being held in a military prison in Afghanistan.
As for torture, Obama's administration has continued Bush's "state secret" defense. Some innocent people who got sucked into the torture system and released, were trying to sue the company who provided the aircraft/crews that did the actual extraordinary rendition/transportation to the torture center. The bush administration said there are so many secrets involved that simply allowing the case to go forward would reveal secrets. The obama administration has continued this defense.
Thus far, I'm not impressed by Obama's record. He may be better than some of the other options, but he ain't above substantial criticism at this point.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-04-05/are-republicans-blackmailing-obama/
Well Greg as far as I know they have dropped the "enemy combatant" BS.
It is insulting, that it is thought that the people the most jealous of, and zealous of preserving, their freedoms - the Americans - did not foresee and forbid the use of torture by the Order of the President.
Of course it was forbidden by Law: there was no open space or loophole through which the Presidential "Torture Coach" could possibly pass: the American system has longed hemmed & penned its elected officials in their exercise of power - it has exalted, rightly, its system of checks on the power of those who rule - as I said , it is insulting to Americans to say: "Your laws failed to anticipate the situation which now requires the exercise of these new presidential powers of torture and assassination of foreign nationals": the Laws celarly forbade it: it's forbidden.
So why no enforcement of the long-standing nay ancient Laws prohibiting this most heinous and savage conduct, by your highest elected Officials?
Why, on the contrary, this relentless and pitiless enforcement of the most newly-minted Laws and Regulations, with full rigor, against all "non-Official" Americans?
Tyranny and despotism.
Welcome to Amerika. You are presumed guilty until you prove your innocence.
Takuan@115: Are Republicans Blackmailing Obama?
Takuan, just an FYI: you have a tendancy to publish URL's with zero context, URL's with no explanation as to what they are about. I usually don't click on URL's that have no explanation attached to them. Since this particular one actually had the title of the article in the URL, I had some sense of what it was about, and clicked. But if you want me to click through more of your URL's, you'll have to provide at least a single sentence saying what the link is about.
As for the article itself, I'm not entirely convinced that Obama is being "blackmailed" by republican senators. Obama has fallen short on a number of issues and I can't blame the republicans for all of them.
Also, do we have enough democrat senators to rewrite the rules so we can remove the "nuclear option"? That was a problem with Bush appointing some more insane judges. The senate has a history of requiring 60 percent of the vote, requiring more moderate appointments. It shouldn't be a simple 51% majority because it allows more radical appointments to get through.
politics, complicated, ain't it?
Wow. Skipping over all of the issues raised by this, why couldn't the TSA agents just tell the man his rights under the law? I just don't get that...
"Not only is it poor tact and drama-queen blogging, it shows you have an explicit bias towards what opinion you want to see in the comments. Not a good thing. "
How dare he call stupid ideas stupid. It's just so unfair to stupid people.
When I first started touring solo, I was TRULY solo, ie no tour manager, so I never had time to go to the post office to convert cash payments from clubs into money orders. By the end of a 5 week tour I'd be flying with $50K in cash!
Pre-9/11 this would never problematic, though I'd get pulled aside by a chuckling airport security (there was no TSA then, remember) guy and told that I should be more careful.
After 9/11, a few times I got pulled into a backroom where TSA dudes started counting the cash. Encountering giant sums of dough like that, I learned, can really start people hyperventilating.
I'd explain my situation, but they'd ask why I didn't get checks (clearly TSA guys weren't acquainted with rock promoters). I got annoyed, but the only time I blew up was when the TSA dudes started fastidiously facing the bills before they counted 'em! I would ask for a supervisor, they'd come by and call off the dogs (uh, figuratively). I never missed a flight.
The solution I came up with eventually was to pack the cash in a bag with absolutely no metal in it, and I never got stopped again.
Footnotes:
1. Eventually I got smart and stopped carrying that much freaking cash around.
2. Lest people start thinking me a millionaire, let me remind you that the bulk of that dough goes to commissions and expenses--not to mention the IRS. I make an OK living, but not meth-lab-proprietor bucks.
Mike Doughty
heh!
Ray
bn thr, dn tht. Whtvr.
Seeing a strong political/ideological bias in the comments just reflects a prevailing opinion among the (more vocal) readership. It could be influenced by moderation, but for the most part the moderators only "edit" the kind of comments the majority expresses (or has expressed in the past) a strong dislike for. Majority opinion still applies.
However, seeing the author of a post preemptively call certain points of view 'clueless' reminds me of people like Rush Limbaugh. Even when you subtract their views, which you may or may not agree with, their tactics don't make for good journalism or debate.
Fifth - nice turn of phrase, but it doesn't say a thing.
Define why you think said ideas or people are stupid, and leave your own personal leanings out of it.
...
Exactly. Which is why a blogger shouldn't preemptive judge the comments to come.
Those TSA folks are just passing time, looking for something interesting to do. Unfortunately, they are given the means to bully people, so that's one of their toys. It's built into the system.
cubie, we've been down that road. Quit slagging the posters.
Leave it to Faux news to spin it in a Capitalist Government light when these are still Bush's policies in play...
weightedcompanioncube -
I love that you talk down to Cory, on his own blog, for talking down to his audience.
Even when you subtract their views, which you may or may not agree with, their tactics don't make for good journalism or debate.
Megadittoes brother, Mega Dittoes.
I pay cash everywhere I go, so I carry a lot of it. I would be incensed by TSA going wtf is with all the cash. I don't want the person in front or behind me to know what's in my wallet/carry-on. TSA should stick to their no-no list and nothing else. And fwiw, I don't like supermarket cashiers commenting on what food I'm buying. Especially vegans.
need a whole bunch of lawsuits, it's the only way.
"Define why you think said ideas or people are stupid, and leave your own personal leanings out of it."
Nope, not going to. You're just gonna have to throw on the ol' thinking cap and figure it out yourself.
Sorry that you think people aren't supposed to "preemptively judge" things based on years of experience of that exact thing happening. Those of us who don't like acting like we were born yesterday are pretty much okay with continuing to do so.
Teller, if I were the cashier and you were buying vegans for food, I wouldn't comment at all. But I'd call the cops after you left.
But that's me.
fifth, exactly.
Dear BoingBoing....( and by dear I mean everyone reading this page right now) PLEASE stay on top of this story and share the follow up with us here. I really hope he is successful in his lawsuit.
What kind of phone did Steve Bierfeldt have, and where can I get one?
X: Correct as usual. But they're so fresh at Slave Trader Joe's.
(nasty, stringy things)
Am I crazy or did Foobar just say the cops job is to protect us from ourselves?
Cory, if you are going to express an up-front dislike of what you consider clueless comments, maybe you should just disable comments entirely on your posts.
Yeah, cause last time BB had a post about gay marriage, you know I wanted to post about how much God Hates Fags, but damned if BB didn't express up front that they wouldn't allow the free expression of such opinions. The bastards.
Hey, if you work at McDonalds, your boss has the right to strip you and make you do jumping jacks:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CgCSps6KgdY
Why shouldn't he have to explain his cash? Because it isn't a fucking crime to carry $4700 onto a plane without explaining it (except possibly crossing an international border).
"Am I under arrest? May I go now?"
Not:
"Officer, how much cash are you carrying?"
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/
I must agree with the poster who commented that many underdeveloped countries are almost entirely cash based. Can you imagine pulling out your platinum card in a small village in Laos? Until recently, I also had trouble using anything but cash in Tokyo (where I live). So I tend to carry cash between the US-Japan (in a safety belt under my jeans, I'm not silly enough to toss it in my handbag). Until 9/11 I CONSISTENTLY had trouble ENTERING the US and was rudely interrogated every single time I went back there! Having been to 18 countries over the years, I can say without hesitation that the US officials are the MOST unprofessional I've encountered (and I've even been interrogated for 45 minutes upon arrival at the airport in Tel Aviv!)
On the other side of the coin, Japan (Narita) is the most professional and efficient!
the irony being of course that rude, power-mad goons at your borders almost ensures they will do a poor job of keeping real threats out.
What if I am on a flight to or from Las Vegas.....
I can bring more than $10,000... can't I ?
The TSA's purpose, and statutory authority, is limited to protecting airplanes. The TSA is neither tasked nor authorized to screen for crime or danger in general.
another one
http://www.philly.com/inquirer/breaking/business_breaking/20090406_TSA_official_fired_in_alleged_theft.html
The $10K rule only applies to funds being taken in & out of the US. It is not illegal to carry such funds they just must be declared to Customs (nothing to do with the TSA).
As for traveling with money, I used to tour manage and was easily capable of having well over $20K in cash on me.
yeah? when you travelling next?
That man is very brave. Much braver than I am.
"Don't Talk to Cops, Part 1"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8z7NC5sgik
WeightedCompanionCube, when are you going to stop trying to pick a fight with Cory?
Get over it. Find another hobby. The fact that you want to have a dumb argument with him does not mean he's obliged to have one with you. Besides, he's way too busy.
Ray DelMundo: in future, please try to make your comments more interesting. Thank you for your cooperation.
So... What would the next step be if the TSA cops had simply answered, "Yes, you are required by law to answer us."?
I've personally never had much luck in getting any kind of law enforcement agent who is currently antagonizing me to correctly inform me of my rights. Not that this has happened frequently, but the few times it has the answer to "am I required to submit/respond to [blank]" has been "You can do what I tell you or be arrested." Researching after the fact, at least one of those incidences involved a search that required my consent, but the officer could still have arrested and held me for a while just to be a pain if I declined.
If a LEO is not going back down when you assert your rights, it takes an awful lot of commitment to see it through, and without the financial resources to even attempt a lawsuit after it is all over, I'm not sure what I would have gained by spending 6 or 8 hours at some police station.
Mike Doughty! Woot! Nice to know you read BB!
I've posted the long version of this story on my website: http://www.nozombies.org/?p=44
Here's the short version:
From September through early November, 2008, my 8 year old son was severely bullied by boys at his school. The abuse included persistent physical violence, death threats and gay-bashing. While I am not privy to all of the disciplinary details, I believe the maximum discipline awarded to any of the aggressors was a single day in in-school suspension.
During November, the overt violence and gay-bashing stopped but the kids took it under the radar, trying to get my son in trouble.
In January, my son heard older boys talking about a zombie shooter video game, including what might happen if zombies took over the school. Though my son had never heard of the game before, he repeated parts of this conversation to a few classmates at recess. As a group, the boys discussed defending the school against the zombie teachers first using fire extinguishers, then using guns and fire (which is exactly why I don’t allow shooter games at his age). No adults heard this conversation.
The following Monday, my son was home sick but one of the other boys got caught with matches in his desk. When confronted, that boy said my son had told him to bring matches so they could burn down the school.
When my son returned to school he was detained in the Principal’s office for three hours, interrogated by police without parental notification, denied food and suspended for five days for making terrorist threats. When he asked to go to the bathroom, an armed, uniformed, police officer escorted him to the nurse’s office, stood guard outside the door and escorted him back. In addition, I was told that we had to submit to a mandatory police search of his room at home (courtesy of The Patriot Act) and a mandatory mental health evaluation before we could return to school.
Incidentally, the police found no weapons, just two kittens and a bajillion legos.
Oh yeah, and the boy who had the matches was NOT suspended.
Here's the game the older boys were talking about: http://www.ugo.com/movies/zombie-guide/?cur=Zombie-Attack
Yep, shooting zombies - ooooh! scary enough to get a kid suspended from school and interrogated by the police. So just who is it that needs more brains?
ZombieMom,
You might want to use Suggest A Link at the top of the page.
Oooh, thanks! :) (and sorry!)
sue the bastards.
The answer to all his questions is YES you are required by law to answer that question when going through a FEDERAL security checkpoint. It doesn't matter if it's by land, by sea, or by air. Remember that TSA falls under DHS. Just like CBP and Border Patrol when going through a checkpoint there is applied consent and they have the right to search and ask questions. "Where you headed? What will you be doing there?", etc. The only bad thing about this situation was the bad mouthed TSA employee and the police officers that had no idea of what they were doing.
I don't think you are correct there, their mission is not tax collection.
The question isn't whether the TSA was justified in asking the guy a couple of questions.
The question is whether these pseudo-cops were justified in threatening to take him to jail (without arresting him) if he didn't answer those questions.
Innocent or not, you don't have to answer any questions -- and probably shouldn't -- unless you're under arrest and have an attorney present.
One of the reasons this country exists is to put overbearing officialdom in its place. We don't lose our constitutional rights when we step inside an airport, although I'd highly recommend not stepping inside an airport in the first place.
I used to work for TSA and they would always drill it in our heads that we were looking for weapons and explosives. If we so happen to find large amounts of currency, the whole bag or drugs we were to report it to the airport police. I think this TSA employee thought he had a good find and wanted to make something of himself. Hopefully he got fired. TSA does not have any right in detaining anyone. Also the airport police are not actual police officers either, they don't have the right to make an arrest, they have to call in the municipal police. I noticed at the airport I used to work they were not fully trained for anything, not knowing what to do whenever we found a gun or ammunition.
When people start saying (like some have above) that we have to answer questions asked by law enforcement just because they were asked; and if we didn't "have anything to hide," we should just answer them - that's scary as hell. Scenario: If a cop knocks on your door and says he watched you get a lot of cash out of the ATM and he wants to come in and look through your house - do you let him? If you "don't have anything to hide," WHY NOT?
Privacy=Freedom
Freedom=Privacy
@#80
Are the banks broke or are they decimated? (One means they have nothing left, the other means they're down 10%... quite a difference.)
(Can you tell that bugs the sh*t out of me?)
That's probably not on the TSA vocabulary test though, so no worries!
That and SWORM#48 were the inspiration for me to sign on and poste this!
@ #167:
Actually, if you are trying to be pedantic, it would't mean they are "10% down," unless you mean 10% down in the number of heads still on shoulders. If anything, "the banks are decimated" would mean that 10% of the banks had failed, which is probably not far off what #80 meant.
More importantly, we are no longer in Roman times. The American Heritage Dictionary, for instance, has "To destroy or kill a large part of" as def. #1, while "To select by lot and kill one in every ten of" is #3.
Probably it might be better to stop worrying about things that bug the sh*t out of you, or at least make sure they're valid.
http://rawstory.com/08/news/2009/06/18/aclu-ron-pauls-campaign-for-liberty-sue-tsa-over-illegal-detention/
This is why the Bushies were voted out of office!!!