TSA Changes Its Rules, ACLU Lawsuit Dropped 285
ndogg writes "Earlier this year, there was much ado about a Ron Paul staffer, Steve Bierfeldt, being detained by the TSA for carrying large sums of money. The ACLU sued on his behalf, and the TSA changed its rules, now stating that its officers can only screen for unsafe materials. With that, the ACLU dropped its suit. '[Ben Wizner, a staff lawyer for the ACLU, 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.'"
Ok to carry drugs now? (Score:3, Interesting)
"...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."
Hmm. Does this means it's ok now to carry my blow in my pocket when I fly home to visit the folks during Xmas? I'm tired of carrying it...up there.
Gray areas (Score:3, Interesting)
My first impression was it was silly and wrong-headed for TSA screeners to be setting themselves up as police proxies - and I do, mostly, still feel that way. But I would certainly want them to notify police under certain circumstances that aren't related to their screening duties. For example, if there was an abducted child for which they had a photo, and a child who looked like that went through the security line, I'd want them to inform the police that someone resembling the kid was boarding a flight - I wouldn't want them to take any additional steps, however.
Basically with regards to police matters they shouldn't do anything a private citizen wouldn't be expected to do in a similar situation.
Only planes? (Score:2, Interesting)
'[Ben Wizner, a staff lawyer for the ACLU, 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.'
So, how is this any different from:
Police get a narrow exception to the Fourth Amendment, which prohibits unreasonable searches, strictly to keep dangerous weapons and illegal drugs off streets/school surroundings/public parks/college campuses/subways/high rise buildings/etc.
Just wondering.
Re:What if they find drugs? (Score:3, Interesting)
If committing an offense unrelated to the security of the aircraft is caught by TSA employees (ie. smuggling heroine or ancient antiquities or whatever), then why not just call the cops? It strikes me that these guys are getting way too big for the britches, and that they have indeed been permitted to expand far beyond any reasonable mandate.
Re:Also: (Score:2, Interesting)
This memorandum does not create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.
Translation: this is an empty document, but will appease the masses when they cry about a lack of "change", because they won't read all the way to the bottom. Carry on, and don't share anything that you don't absolutely have to under FOIA.
Re:Interpretation, not exception (Score:3, Interesting)
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
I know the language is imprecise, but it seems perfectly obvious to me that the first clause describes only the authors' goals, while the second part (starting from "and no Warrants shall issue...") describes how such security will be guaranteed—with the unstated assumption being that no searches or seizures will ever take place without a warrant, however "reasonable", thus making all searches and seizures subject to the need for probable cause, oath or affirmation, and specific predefined boundaries.
By that interpretation it wouldn't matter what the TSA (or anyone else) thinks is "reasonable"; they'd still need a specific warrant before performing any search or seizure.
Re:did not vote at all? (Score:3, Interesting)
TBH, if you really want a none-of-the-above vote, don't vote for the candidate you think is most qualified. Vote for the third party candidate you think is most likely to receive the most votes out of any third party, whether you like the candidate (or even the party!) at all. Enough votes means that the third party gets treated as a main party the next time around, which should help people get at least more out of the two-party thinking.
Re:In other news... (Score:3, Interesting)
Read the reports he helped arrange after the fact, and watch the video he recorded on his iPhone. It becomes painfully obvious that he intended to get stopped, intended to get hassled, and ultimately intended for this ruling to come down that the TSA has to stop sliding down the slippery slope of fucking with people they search and stick to the real reason they exist - to prevent airplanes from getting hijacked and flown into buildings full of corporate executives, destroying the financial well being of America.
For what it's worth, I wasn't a Ron Paul supporter until I saw this (the guy was working on behalf of Ron Paul) - and now I am. And by 'supporter' I mean I know who he is and I'd vote for him if he ran again.
Re:three cheers for Steve Bierfeldt (Score:4, Interesting)
It's interesting how the TSA person sounded in this. Steve keeps asking him 'am I required by law to answer that question' and the TSA operative never once says yes or no. It sounds like he actually doesn't know, which is quite worrying. You'd have thought that some basic education in the relevant parts of the law would be part of basic training for TSA guys - even an afternoon session would have covered that.
The most interesting thing, however, was that he was told that he would be taken to the police station (which meant the DEA or FBI office), against his will, without being arrested and, most importantly, without being read his rights. I would be very surprised if this is legal. Even the police aren't allowed to do that: they can ask you to go with them (and you are free to refuse), or they can arrest you. If they arrest you, then they are required to read you your rights and to maintain a proper custody chain (i.e. the arresting officer is 100% responsible for you until he has received some paperwork where someone else takes responsibility).
Well done to Steve Bierfeldt for not backing down and not losing his temper.
Re:three cheers for Steve Bierfeldt (Score:3, Interesting)
The most interesting thing, however, was that he was told that he would be taken to the police station (which meant the DEA or FBI office), against his will, without being arrested and, most importantly, without being read his rights. I would be very surprised if this is legal. Even the police aren't allowed to do that: they can ask you to go with them (and you are free to refuse), or they can arrest you. If they arrest you, then they are required to read you your rights and to maintain a proper custody chain (i.e. the arresting officer is 100% responsible for you until he has received some paperwork where someone else takes responsibility).
TheRaven64 is very wrong. I am a law enforcement officer. First of all, your Miranda rights are only read to you if you are *in custody* (not free to leave) and are being questioned for a criminal offense. Being arrested does not automatically invoke Miranda. I have arrested LOTS of people who are never advised of their Miranda rights, because they aren't being questioned. Arrest someone for a warrant for not paying fines? There's no questions to ask, they are going to jail. Arrest someone for another agency's warrant? You don't know what questions to ask, and they are going to jail. The list could go on and on.
Secondly, I have arrested hundreds of people and can tell you that the "property custody chain" makes no sense. We don't sign people over and receive receipts from other officers or jails when you are booked in.
Sorry, TheRaven64, but you don't know what you are talking about.