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.'"
Maybe it's just me (Score:5, Insightful)
Personally, I'd have rather have a legal precedent set VS a rule that can be changed back.
Also: (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Fuck that.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This seems to be another exemption from President Obama's promise of transparency in government. In fact, I'm not sure I'm able to distinguish his policies from his predecessor's.
-Peter
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If you think his ability to make changes is so great that he could have changed everything by now, you are a damn fool. If you vote as if politicians will quickly achieve all of their stated goals regardless of the opposition they may face, you are poison.
(I voted for Obama, but mostly because he wasn't McCain-Palin, not because I thought he was going to be so different than his predecessors)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
(I voted for Obama, but mostly because he wasn't McCain-Palin, not because I thought he was going to be so different than his predecessors)
I did too. I kind of wish McCain of 2000 was running in the last election instead of McCain of 2008.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
He didn't get the nod in '00 because he wasn't tight with the neocons. Dubya was, so he got the nod.
Personally, as a Republican, I'd LOVE to get my party away from the neocons.
Re:Also: (Score:5, Funny)
Good luck with that
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
they are not "ultra capitalists". Capitalism would mean there's no goverment regulation or involvement, which neocons certainly are not about.
A little capitalism is all very well and good, but unrestrained capitalism is nothing but bad.
I strongly disagree. Most of the time when people cite the negatives of capitlism, they are doing just the opposite, they are pointing out why corruption, that is buisness in bed with the government, is bad. Which is certainly true.
Not that capitalism is perfect, so yes t
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I honestly don't think anybody could have won against Obama, not even a Ronald Reagan. Maybe if you went waaaaay back in time a Teddy Roosevelt would have enough charisma to beat Obama, but even that's iffy considering Obama got almost 100% of the black votes (which is understandable given the history-setting precedent).
Obama is a great speaker who knew how to rally the American people. Plus he had a lousy republican president and a lousy economy in his favor. In my opinion he was unbeatable. Almost any
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
>
(I voted for Obama, but mostly because he wasn't McCain-Palin, not because I thought he was going to be so different than his predecessors)
This is the problem with have in politics today. You do not have to be good, or compliant to win. Just not %otherparty. I have had enough of this, and that is why I did not vote for McCain. The little (r) was not enough, and I refuse to vote for people just because they do not eat babies.
(For the record, I voted Libertarian this time.)
Re: (Score:2)
You do not have to be good, or compliant to win. Just not %otherparty
That is the reason I chose NOT to vote. Neither side earned my vote so neither side got it.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Also: (Score:4, Insightful)
You need to take a longer term view. Your vote serves to do more than simply help that candidate win that election. It also serves to increase (however slightly) the profile of that candidate, and by extension the party. Every vote that goes to a third party is one that helps further the belief that a third party candidate is viable.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
>>>Every vote that goes to a third party is one that helps further the belief that a third party candidate is viable.
Bullshit. When Ross Perot won ~20% of the vote in 1992 (and cost Bush Senior his election), all it did was reinforce the belief that voting for anyone other than R or D was like throwing-away your vote.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
did not vote at all? (Score:3, Insightful)
The only office you consider voting for, then backed down, was for the federal office of president?
You did not vote for your federal level house rep or senators, or any state/county/city level offices?
Some white guy in a wig, now long dead, once said: "We do not have a government of the majority. We have a government of the majority who choose to participate."
Re: (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: (Score:3, Insightful)
>>>If it wins, everybody has to go back to the drawing board and field new candidates.
Nope. According to the Constitution, the States would then choose the Electors who would select the president, and if no clearcut winner emerges, then the Congress picks the final winner. That's how Thomas Jefferson won in 1800.
Re:Also: (Score:5, Informative)
If you think his ability to make changes is so great that he could have changed everything by now, you are a damn fool.
I don't think he can change everything, but the TSA is part of the Executive Branch.
Obama is the Executive. As Executive, he can issue "Executive Orders" telling them what to do.
Oh wait! He did! [whitehouse.gov]
January 21, 2009
...
All agencies should adopt a presumption in favor of disclosure, in order to renew their commitment to the principles embodied in FOIA, and to usher in a new era of open Government. The presumption of disclosure should be applied to all decisions involving FOIA.
The presumption of disclosure also means that agencies should take affirmative steps to make information public. They should not wait for specific requests from the public. All agencies should use modern technology to inform citizens about what is known and done by their Government. Disclosure should be timely.
This isn't a problem with Obama, it's a problem with the TSA and their culture of secrecy.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Well, the fact that the TSA hasn't changed their culture is a pretty bald statement of exactly how powerful the President is (and it demonstrates that there is a difference between his legal powers and his powers to change reality).
Re: (Score:2)
Of how powerful he is or of how dedicated to his stated position he is?
Re: (Score:2)
Politicians the world over have long had enormous difficulties changing the behavior of the bureaucracies they ostensibly control. Even in situations where the politicians is the political/executive head of a department, it's amazing just how effectively senior and mid-level bureaucrats can throw up sufficient smoke to stall reforms.
Watch "Yes Minister", the delightful British sitcom. While about a Minister in the British Parliament, the conniving and self-serving nature of chief bureaucrats applies to an
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Any leader, political or otherwise, that walks into a large-scale bureaucracy thinking their powers are going to be sufficient to turn around what is the human equivalent of a 100-car train is going to be in for some serious pain. You don't just declare "This is going to happen" and then it happens.
The best example I can think of was China's Great Leap Forward. You had all these low-level functionaries given orders from far-far away on how much iron was going to be produced, how much rice, how much this a
Re:Also: (Score:5, Informative)
This isn't a problem with Obama, it's a problem with the TSA and their culture of secrecy.
Sure sounds like it. The spokesperson essentially admitted that they would disclose it in response to a FOIA request and Obama's order essentially says that if it would be released under FOIA, then just release it now and skip the song-and-dance. The TSA complains that it is unfairly maligned, but insisting on the song-and-dance like that is exactly the kind of BS that makes people lose any faith or confidence in the agency that they might have had.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I have a firm rule about not replying to ACs, but this is quite beyond the pale.
You clearly don't know who you are addressing. Among many other things I'm an honorably discharged combat veteran.
I don't claim to have all the answers, but have put it on the line to defend liberty. I would di
Re:Also: (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This isn't a new thing, they've had that particular power for a long time now.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There is plenty of precedent, look up "strict scrutiny" which is applied to 4th amendment exceptions. That's why the TSA changed the rules instead of fighting. They knew they no chance of prevailing.
Re:Maybe it's just me (Score:4, Insightful)
Why do you think the rules were changed in the first place? The system works as follows: Now those rules are changed to avoid a precedent. Then we wait 'til the waves settle and use the time to think up a more bulletproof version, including terrorists, pedophiles and ... well, whatever other boogeyman shows up in the meantime. Then anyone protesting or even arguing against it is vilified.
You didn't get the memo?
Re: (Score:2)
My understanding is that one of the primary issues in a civil case is whether there's even an issue that the court can decide. I believe one can ask a court to make a preemptive ruling. However, most of the time if there isn't actually a dispute the court won't hear the case. And since the TSA changed its policies, there's no longer a dispute.
Now, if the detained individual wants to file his own lawsuits for damages and that sort of thing, that's a different issue.
Re: (Score:2)
Really. ACLU didn't even insist on a consent decree, they just rolled over based on a directive that can be cancelled tomorrow.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
the more things change... (Score:3, Informative)
She said the directives would not be released unless a Freedom Of Information Act request was submitted by The Washington Times.
The law is not available for inspection, citizen. Now drop your pants.
$4500 a "large sum of money" for travel? (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm surprised the TSA considered $4500 to be a "large sum of money". That's about two weeks of business travel. If that.
With current credit card fees, it may be more cost-effective to carry cash. Even if you get robbed 1% of the time, you're still ahead.
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Most business travel stays within the domain the home currency, so that's irrelevant. And there are more fees than just currency conversion markups.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You just listed a bunch of potential. Sure you can get cards without them, you can also get cards with them.
I'm pretty sure the business amex card the wife has has an annual fee for example. I'm also pretty sure that a large set of people carry a balance, by accident, once every so often.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re:$4500 a "large sum of money" for travel? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Hardly. Traveling with a few thousand dollars in cash is not unheard of by any means.
Is it now legal to carry large sums of money? (Score:2)
What if I put $1 million in suitcase, and the TSA found it without specifically screening for it?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
It depends - are you white? If you aren't, kiss that money goodbye unless you can *prove* that it wasn't from selling drugs. After all, it'll be covered in cocaine residue (like any other US currency)...
Re:Is it now legal to carry large sums of money? (Score:5, Informative)
Within the US, yes of course it is. Why wouldn't it be?
Look up how governments use civil forfeiture, and be enlightened.
Re: (Score:2)
The only catch is that your money might be grabbed at gunpoint by a gang of thieves so powerful that civil authorities are powerless to stop them. They are variously known as "the pigs", "the cops", or even "the police".
Cash is the anonymous proxy for economic networks (Score:5, Insightful)
And there is nothing the government hates more than anonymity. Can't tax it, track it and control it unless it is electronic, and traceable. That is why they hate cash so much. The only possible reason for economic anonymity is nefarious. You must be using it to avoid taxation or buy or sell something the government doesn't think you should have or fund terrorists. Cash must be stamped out.
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.
Re:Ok to carry drugs now? (Score:5, Funny)
"...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.
Probably not. The quote came from the ACLU, and only refers to the limits of governmental authority established in The United States Constitution. The United States government does not operate within the bounds of that charter.
Re: (Score:2)
he United States government does not operate within the bounds of that charter.
Though they will happily use a copy of it to wipe their hands after they search "up there" for your stash.
Re: (Score:2)
But then I don't know your folks...
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Essentially, beyond their screening duties, they should have the same power as any other person to tell the police if they see a crime being committed. Also like everyone else, they should stand to be in for a heap of trouble if they go beyond just telling the police However, as an appropriate safeguard, they should not even have that power if they only saw it because they exercised their power to search (which no other person has).
Re:Gray areas (Score:4, Insightful)
They are not police, have no police powers, and are bullies and dragoons.
E
P.S. I'm calling modified Godwin's Law on this.
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: (Score:2)
Ron Paul supporters can take a deep breath (Score:4, Insightful)
The system basically worked here, the offended party was able to use the system to address his grievance. Let's not forget that for all our bluster about liberty and freedom there are some places where a real politically-motivated detainment could have meant death or worse.
Re:Ron Paul supporters can take a deep breath (Score:5, Insightful)
No, the system didn't fully work. The TSA changed its "internal policies".. That is much different than a legal precedent, and of course, they can be changed right back, in a month. A person violating "internal policies" might get "disciplined" which is a long way from what's going to happen to someone for willfuly violating your rights. (And really, some of those minimum wage power tripping ego's really do need to get knocked back a few notches.) Also, if I'm not mistaken, pretty much all of the airports use Contractors to actually hire the agents. I'm not sure exactly how much training the employees get, since that would cut into the companies profits...
Re:Ron Paul supporters can take a deep breath (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes, but to me the real point to keep in mind is that since 9/11, we've been on the slippery slope toward becoming one of those bad places you're describing. And let's also remember that the whole reason Guantanamo exists is so that some parties will not be able to use the system to address their grievances.
I have a recurring alert in my calendar to donate $100 every July 1 to the ACLU, PO box 96265, Washington, DC 20090-6265. I hope everyone here who's posting about what a great victory this was will do something similar. (Note that contributions to the ACLU are not tax-deductible because they use more than a certain % of their money for lobbying.)
What I really love about the ACLU is that even though they're basically a bunch of liberal Democrats, they take cases strictly on what they perceive as the case's legal importance for civil liberties. Most people associated with the ACLU probably think Ron Paul is the antichrist, but they took this case because it was a good, important case.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The system basically worked here
Umm, it was the threat of litigation by the ACLU that worked. If you consider the ACLU as part of the "system", consider why there has to be an AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION in the first place. The "system" is erring ever more on the "side" of the government. Perhaps your just not old enough to remember what it USED to be like. But then again, I remember $0.25 cokes from vending machines, which is strange, considering the government claims only 2-3% inf
three cheers for Steve Bierfeldt (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (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 anoth
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
"You do not have to say anything, but it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned, something that you later rely on in court, anything you do say may be used in evidence."
This caution must again be repeated at the start of every interview. Any interview conducted without this caution is inadmissible as evidence. On being arrested, you must be informed of the crime you are being accused of and read this cau
Impact on computer searches? (Score:2)
The new rules, issued in September and October, tell officers "screening may not be conducted to detect evidence of crimes unrelated to transportation security"
Does this mean they can no longer go through your computer files?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I've never heard of computers being searched on domestic flights. I'm under the impression that that is Customs that performs those searches. So, yes, they will likely continue.
Everyone who thinks that this changes things... (Score:3, Insightful)
...is an idiot.^^
Because now, suddenly money is an "unsafe material" (could be fake, could be to pay "terrorists", could be a bomb inside, "I'm just asking questions."(TM)*),
and therefore it is "by definition reasonable".
Who are those people who think they could stop criminals that don't care for the rules of society (laws), by creating yet another law? Are they drunk?
On the other hand... who said they actually want to stop them...? ^^
___
* Trademark of FOX News.
Re:In other news... (Score:4, Insightful)
...people with large sums of money have more freedoms than people who don't.
He had a large sum of money on him, and as a result was detained for hours and strip-searched, as well as being accused of being a terrorist and denied access to a lawyer or charged with any crime. Meanwhile, the guy who only had $15 and a cracker in his pocket was able to get on the plane. Tell me again how the guy with the money had more freedoms in this case?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, if the guy with a cracker had a bottle of soda instead, the roles would have been reversed but he wouldn't be released with a change of rules to take home.
Re:In other news... (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, if the guy with a cracker had a bottle of soda instead, the roles would have been reversed but he wouldn't be released with a change of rules to take home.
More often than not, that bottle of soda gets chucked into a 30 gallon garbage bin sitting next to the security screeners.
Which tells you how dangerous they really think it is.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Never-the-less, people with large sums of money have more freedoms than people who don't.
Except in this case, they clearly didn't. GPP's argument wasn't a strawman -- or rather, if you believe it is, explain why; saying "that's a strawman" isn't sufficient.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
A general statement can be disproved by a single counterexample. That's been done, so you're obviously wrong. Trying to assert a fact by repeating yourself over and over... well, it isn't a valid argument, and shouldn't be seriously put forward by anybody who's age is in the double digits. Did you stamp your foot as you typed that?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
'Lots of money' as in a few thousands in cash that will trigger a search based on the DEA's rules, and 'lots of money' as in mover and shaker who can easily afford good lawyers if hassled are so very different. Conflating the two does create a strawman, a purely hypothetical entity that you can substitute for real ones to have an easier time arguing your point. The people who travel with too much cash, and the people who make large donations to political campaigns and have their pictures taken with governor
Re:In other news... (Score:5, Funny)
I dont have to "tell you again" about your straw-man. Its your straw-man, perhaps you should have given it the ability to speak.
This is my straw-man. There are many like it, but this one is mine. My straw-man is my best friend. It is my life. I must master it as I master my life. My straw-man, without me, is useless. Without my straw-man, I am useless. I must use my straw-man true. My straw-man and myself know that what counts in this flamewar is not the illogic we fire, the noise of our post, nor the sense we make. We know that it is the diversion of the argument that count. My straw-man is human, even as I, because it is my life. Thus, I will learn it as a brother. I will learn its weakness, its strength, and its straw. I will keep my straw-man clean and ready, even as I am clean and ready. We will become part of each other. Before The Flying Spaghetti Monster I swear this creed. My straw-man and myself are the defenders of the internet. We are the masters of our argument. We are the saviors of my ego. So be it, until victory is mine and there is no enemy, but conformity.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, the exact curcumstances of the events being duscussed is the straw man.
It's not your completely unsupported claim with no relevance to the events at hand that is the straw man.
Hint: yes in lots of situations wealthy people get away with things that poorer people don't. But carrying money and being wealthy are unrelated.
The homeless looking man carrying $100,000 in a sack is going to have far more issues with the cops than the well dressed man with $80 in his wallet.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
In this case a large sum of money to the TSA was $4,300 in a metal box. We're not talking a suitcase with a million dollars. While I don't carry that much cash, someone carrying that much cash isn't uncommon. Business people may carry that much for one reason or another.
As far as I know only Customs asks people about the amount of money carried by a passenger if you are entering a country. Almost no one asks on domestic flights.
Re: (Score:2)
It is pretty dumb to stick it in a metal box. That is only 43 notes. You can easily shove that much in a decently broken in wallet or $30 money belt's compartment.
Not that he should have gotten in trouble for such a small amount, just there are smarter ways to transport cash. Having had three suitcases lost by airlines, there is no way in hell I would put even my favorite shirt in a suitcase for the airlines to handle.
Hint; If you are moving american dollars around it is a good idea to rinse and iron them.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (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 Am
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I, for one, am quite wealthy. I still live in my mom's basement though....
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Second Life money earned by whoring out your avatar doesn't count.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
While I think you're probably right, I have to say, that's a pretty dangerous line of reasoning.
Re: (Score:3)
I thought that they can search you because flying on a plane is not a constitutional right, and by flying you agree to be searched (within a different set of rules than the 4th amendment).
Interpretation, not exception (Score:5, Insightful)
No, it's not an exception to the Fourth Amendment. It's only an interpretation that looking for guns and explosives when people board a plane does not constitute an "unreasonable search and seizure", but looking for anything else is "unreasonable".
Re: (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.
Re:B 'fing' S (Score:4, Informative)
You know who I blame for this? YOU(me). When was the last time any of us rioted in the streets to stop this kind of BS? been a while huh? wonder why the Gov. can pass anything they like on a whim? The only people they answer to is themselves.
April 15th, July 4th, and September 12th. But it wasn't really a riot, and the numbers vary based on who is telling the story...
Re: (Score:2)
I suppose the same thing that happens in other cases where drugs are found by illegal searches. They keep the stuff, but you walk free.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Not so sure !
Whether the 4th amendment applies or not is irrelevant. The 4th amendment just states that legislative power (The Congress) cannot pass into law any legislation that would allow unreasonable searches. However, in the case of airport searches, the mandate of the TSA is to prevent individuals from boarding aircrafts with potentially dangerous items/material.
So far so good. The TSA has some tools to detect any potential threat and/or will exercise their judgement to do just that. If they trigger a
Re: (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.