Airport rules changed after Ron Paul aide detained

[derg]

Airport rules changed after Ron Paul aide detained
Washington Times -- Nov. 11, 2009
By Stephen Dinan

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.

TSA was created in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks to boost screening at airports, but the young agency has repeatedly bumped heads against civil libertarians, who argue officers overstep their authority.

TSA spokeswoman Lauren Gaches said the new "internal directives" are meant to ensure their screeners are consistent. She acknowledged the policy on large sums of cash had changed, but wouldn't provide a copy of either document. She said the directives would not be released unless a Freedom Of Information Act request was submitted by The Washington Times.

"TSA routinely assesses its policies and screening procedures to ensure the highest levels of security nationwide," she said. "Currency alone is not a threat, and TSA does not restrict the amount of currency a traveler may carry through the checkpoint."

TSA had earlier defended the search, though it had criticized officers' abusive behavior.

The ACLU released the September directive because TSA included it in a public court filing, but said when TSA gave it the October directive it was instructed not to publish it.

That second directive tells screeners that "traveling with large amounts of currency is not illegal," and that to the extent bulk quantities of cash warrant searching, it is only to further security objectives, the ACLU said.

The ACLU sued in June on behalf of Mr. Bierfeldt, who was detained after he sent a metal box with $4,700 in cash and checks through an X-ray machine at the airport.

He had the cash as part of his duties as director of development for the Campaign for Liberty, the offshoot group that Mr. Paul, Texas Republican, created from his failed presidential bid.

Mr. Bierfeldt recorded audio of the confrontation on his iPhone, including threats, insults and repeated questions about where he obtained the money.

"Are you from this planet?" one officer told him, while another accused him of acting like a child for asking what part of the law forced him to answer their questions about the money.

"The TSA has stated that their policy is going to change, which is basically what we were after all along," Mr. Bierfeldt told The Washington Times.

Some civil liberties activists speculate that TSA wants passengers to be uncertain about its procedures because it gives more power to the authorities in an encounter.

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.

 

[juan valdez]

Good.
Hadn't heard about the scrip pills but I would have not allowed that either. Or at least made a stink about it all the way to court.

 

[Douglas]

Sounds great, i remember when this went down. It is cool that something is actually going to come from it.

 

[Richman]

Hi Guys,

Yea, I listened to the tape of the confrontation that the guy recorded on his phone.

He remained pretty cool during the whole thing, and the TSA and whatever Barnie Fifes were there came across as complete D-bags on a power trip.

When the real grown-ups got wind of the situation, they let this guy go as fast as they could, because they knew they had really stepped on the ole' crank.

Moral of the story: Keep yer trap closed. Don't be a tool to the cops and remain calm. Lawyer up. Bring the legal rain after you've extricated yourself from the immediate situation. As much as I detest their politics, the ACLU is not without useful advice.

Richman

 

[Rosstafari]

Huh. I should've recorded the TSA guy in JFK who told me that I was being held for secondary screening because I was wearing a Red Sox hat. He wasn't joking.

 

[derg]

Huh. I should've recorded the TSA guy in JFK who told me that I was being held for secondary screening because I was wearing a Red Sox hat. He wasn't joking.

Should have told him you received it from your Mullah!

 

[derg]

Ooh! Beer-induced hypothetical question.

If I wore a "Ten Gallon" hat through security, would the TSA consider that a violation of the "3-1-1" rule?

 

[OhioStatePilot]

Ooh! Beer-induced hypothetical question.

If I wore a "Ten Gallon" hat through security, would the TSA consider that a violation of the "3-1-1" rule?

Not if it contains ice! Just make sure there's no liquid and you're good to go!

 

[jrh]

Not if it contains ice! Just make sure there's no liquid and you're good to go!

"What if I'm a passenger who does not have 3 oz with me, but is confident I could produce 3+ oz on the flight?"

"You mean producing a liquid?"

"...or a gel."

 

[Boris Badenov]

"A narrow exception to the fourth amendment"? Please tell me that's a mistype. Not much point in a Bill Of Rights if government agencies can get a "narrow" exemption in the case of "exigent circumstance"! And this from the ACLU...

 

[esa17]

What are the odds now that when you're "interviewed" by the TSA they separate you from your phone?

 

[Patrick]

What are the odds now that when you're "interviewed" by the TSA they separate you from your phone?

I'd say VERY good

 

[Mike H]

"What if I'm a passenger who does not have 3 oz with me, but is confident I could produce 3+ oz on the flight?"

"You mean producing a liquid?"

"...or a gel."

:laff: :laff: :laff:

 

[Polar742]

"A narrow exception to the fourth amendment"? Please tell me that's a mistype. Not much point in a Bill Of Rights if government agencies can get a "narrow" exemption in the case of "exigent circumstance"! And this from the ACLU...

Glad I'm not the only one that caught that....

 

[tonyw]

Not if it contains ice! Just make sure there's no liquid and you're good to go!

What if there was a turkey sandwich in there? Is that a liquid, or a gel?

 

[OhioStatePilot]

"What if I'm a passenger who does not have 3 oz with me, but is confident I could produce 3+ oz on the flight?"

"You mean producing a liquid?"

"...or a gel."

:rotfl:

What if there was a turkey sandwich in there? Is that a liquid, or a gel?

Wait! The turkey sandwich is for medical purposes!

 

[wheelsup]

"A narrow exception to the fourth amendment"? Please tell me that's a mistype. Not much point in a Bill Of Rights if government agencies can get a "narrow" exemption in the case of "exigent circumstance"! And this from the ACLU...

I'm not really sure how you'd handle the situation though. It's not a good idea to not have screening, at all, IMO. Are you suggesting there be no x-raying?

 

[OhioStatePilot]

I'm not really sure how you'd handle the situation though. It's not a good idea to not have screening, at all, IMO. Are you suggesting there be no x-raying?

Well, one way to handle it would be to have security handled privately by the airlines and not by the government.

 

[tonyw]

There's a big difference between being screened in order to fly and having cops kick in the door to your home.

In fact, I believe there was a case where the Ninth Circuit -- yes, that one, in "liburl" California -- found that the rules requiring you to either show ID or to subject yourself to extra screening are constitutional.

It's good that the rules changed. I don't want someone deciding, hey, let's check out that guy's computer to see if he's got porn on there and then confiscating that person's computer when he finds the Carrie Prejean sex tape on it.

 

[derg]

What about lutefisk?

It's kind of a gel, kind of a solid.