Posted on 11/14/2009 11:39:01 AM PST by Clint Williams
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.'
Interesting.
So, if you have a suitcase full of heroin, they have to let you go?!
TSA is so inconsistent, I have had more cans of shaving cream taken from my luggage, even the small cans that are good to go in most airports for 5 years then one inspector has a hair up their...
Why sure. Of course there is nothing to stop them from notifying law enforcement offcials at the destination point that a drug dealer is coming their way.
It does. I wonder what the catch is?
Agree.
“So, if you have a suitcase full of heroin, they have to let you go?!”
No, they don’t. The last paragraph in the article states:
“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.”
The problem with what happened in St. Louis is that there is nothing inherently illegal about carrying large sums of cash and the TSA went beyond their authority in asking questions about the money.
No catch really. Even a stopped clock is right twice a day. (or once a day if it’s a 24 hour clock.)
It was never a narrow exception. It was implied consent...if you want to fly you have to consent to search.
Originally TSA was supposed to ONLY look for IEDs and weapons. NOTHING ELSE.
“The problem with what happened in St. Louis is that there is nothing inherently illegal about carrying large sums of cash and the TSA went beyond their authority in asking questions about the money.”
It’s the same situation in every jurisdiction in the country, when people have large sums of cash. They get questioned and possibly open themselves up to prosecution. Is the TSA not considered law enforcement?
But if TSA employees are not LEOs then they how can they detain someone with illicit drugs? This doesn’t seem consistent.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.