No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound
to enforce it. Eq– 16 Am. Jur. Sec. 177 late 2d, Sec 256

-Mike

Carrying money is not a crime, it’s a right. Refusing to talk to police without a lawyer is not a crime, it’s a right, and is in fact what lawyers will advise you to do at all times.

A person lawfully exercising these two rights is suspicious and makes a cop “compelled” to investigate them?

The poster above who asserts this, and any cop who operates under that assumption has some serious retraining in order. I’ll never understand the authoritarian mindset, how these sheep can feel safer with a nice friendly sheep farmer to tell them where to obediently go – the pasture, the barn, the slaughterhouse.

At any rate to the rest of you. I believe most of the people reading this post don’t realize what happened on October 26, 2001 when the Patriot Act was signed into law. You gave up your right for detention without charge – poof, gone with one signature of a liberty hating President. The TSA has the right by law to hold young Steve or anyone else without charge (I believe it’s up to 24 hours for US citizens and indefinite for non US citizens) until their suspicions are satisfied that there was no terrorist or money laundering activity.

The law is the law. I’m not asking anyone to like it. In fact I’m asking people to contact their Congressmen and women to have the ACT overturned. In the interim, however, there is very little that can be done, being a smart aleck doesn’t help and often makes it worse.

Is everybody just waking up now to the fact that your Civil Liberties were eroded one by one over the last 8 years? Wake up – it’s going to continue happening even under this President unless you get involved at the local level – everything grows from there. These laws are made to protect US citizens but they are so fraught with special interest codicils that the very people they are supposed to help are often the ones who are most harmed.

A dozen separate blogs could be created on Donklephant detailing which companies have TSA contracts, what they do with the information captured, and who benefits from this information when it is sold or archived. This is where your anger, outrage, and attention should be focused. Keep you eye on the organ grinder not on the monkey’s.

Look for TSORons posting

“TSORon said…

RB, it is against the law to take $10,000 or more in cash out of the country. Has been for a long time.

You can disagree with my other statement as much as you like, the fact is that I am correct.”

The TSA seem to be a**hat wannabe cops who make their own rules up. Its perfectly legal to take more thank 10k out of the country, you just need to declare it to customs.

This whole TSA thing is a front to get LEA’s into peoples business with no reasonable suspicion of crime

Shouldn’t the Transportation Security Administration’s job be to ensure the security of people flying? Does $4,700 in cash represent a security risk to an airplane? If the cash is not a security risk, this should not be the TSA’s domain. End of story.

On to law enforcement…

Same question, does carrying $4,700 in cash make you a criminal? It does not, and I respect this guy’s right to carry cash. I do believe it is called ‘legal’ tender for a reason.

Not a lot of people would go through the trouble to stand up for their individual rights in this case. The more officials get used to seeing people carrying ‘legal’ tender, then the less likely they are going to be to go into a frenzy every time they run across someone carrying a few grand.

Should we apply that logic to every group we can profile? Should we automatically stop and search every middle-eastern looking man because all of the 9/11 hijackers were middle eastern men? Should we search every african american for drugs and weapons, because drug and violent crimes rates are higher amongst that group?

We’re only as free as the least free amongst us. Let’s protect all of their freedoms. There’s not a damned thing suspicious about carrying $4700 around with you. Maybe he doesn’t like to use banks, do we require the use of banks for amounts over a few hundred bucks? I thought money was supposed to be legal tender, not probable cause.

They might as well use airport security gates to check us for drug residue, tax delinquency, open parking tickets, late alimony payments, porn on our laptops, past-due credit card balances, and poor dental hygiene while they have us there, too.

Yes, I’m exaggerating, but why on earth would $4700 in cash constitute a safety threat to a domestic air flight? The answer is it doesn’t, but that doesn’t stop the governement from using the opportunity to pursue its agenda. And if you protest what recourse do you have?

Using a government agency to perform the functions of the TSA is counter to the notion of a free society. I’d rather sit on a flight next to a drug dealer than have my rights and my privacy violated like Mr. Bierfeldt.

I’m not sure simply answering the question would have helped him at all. Would they believe him and let him go? That seems unlikely. It is clear that they thought the money to be from illegal activity as you pointed out.

Justin,
Do you have any “extra” thoughts on the TSA posting to the blog on this? I just got chills thinking about who is reading and why.

TSA has a blog, Evolution of Security, so be sure to let “Bob” know your thoughts on this incident: http://www.tsa.gov/blog/
***Be sure to read all of the comments — including those by TSA personnel

TSA has a whole office & Special Counsel to deal with incidents like this, and you can also find out how to file a complaint here: LINK

From: LINK

The Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007, Pub. L. 110-53, requires the Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties (CRCL) to report quarterly regarding: (1) the number and types of review of Department actions undertaken; (2) the type of advice provided and the response given to such advice; (3) the number and nature of complaints received by DHS for alleged violations; and (4) a summary of the disposition of such complaints, the reviews and inquiries conducted, and the impact of these activities.1 In accordance with this requirement, this report serves as CRCL’s third quarter report, covering the period from April 1, 2008, to June 30, 2008.

From: LINK
About the Privacy Office: The Department of Homeland Security Privacy Office is the first statutorily required Privacy Office at any federal agency whose mission is to minimize the impact on the individual’s privacy, particularly the individual’s personal information and dignity, while achieving the mission of the Department of Homeland Security.

Steve was arrested. When he was asked is he was free to leave, they told him no. He was not being “detained.” He was threatened with handcuffs.

Anyway you want to look at it, if they didn’t have a reasonable articulable suspicion (which is not probably cause, but somewhat below that) that Steve was, or had committed a specific crime, they had no power to arrest him. For that matter, without a reasonable articulable suspicious, they had no power to “seize” him by detaining him. But they did. That’s a violation of Steven’s 4th Amendment rights against unreasonable seizures.

Note: I’m not talking about the TSA questioning him. That’s permissible as an administrative stop. He is not required to answer their questions, particularly when he’s concerned that any answer he might give would result in a forfeiture proceeding, meaning he never sees the money again. (He has to prove he came about it legally. The money is presumed guilty until proven innocent.)

Bottom line: law enforcement personnel can’t go off hunches. They have to have some reason to believe you might have actually committed a crime. There was no reason here.

2) There is no law saying which police questions you must answer. This is because you don’t have to answer any police questions. It’s called the Fifth Amendment guys.

3) I’m not sure $4,700 in cash rises to the level of evidence of crime, but it is suspicious. Money laundering is just one possibility.

What I haven’t seen from the anti-TSA side is any actual evidence Steve’s rights were violated. So he got taken to the station and inconvenienced for a half-hour. The TSA is supposed to take aside anyone who looks suspicious and double-check their story. That is their job.

As to everyone ultimately getting what they deserve, however–that point I will absolutely–and heartily–concede!

You’re right: “This is the world we live in right now – that’s a simple fact.” And while it may be “much more effective to peel the apple in your hand not the one on the tree,” that doesn’t mean I’m still not going to get that apple any way I can.

You seem so angry that no one was doing anything BEFORE, but at the same time, angry that this guy is actually doing something NOW. As for me, I intend to live in “the world we live in right now,” do what I can right now, and move on from there. I’m not sure why you think looking back and ranting about the past is helpful in any way.

Give the guy a break–at least he was trying to call attention to something that deserved to be stopped: illegal harassment by the TSA.