View Full Version : TSA/Police harassment? Your opinion.
I'm curious to see what people's opinions are concerning this incident that was recorded by the "suspect" at an airport.
Fox News Reporthttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XMB6L487LHM&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Ftravelinglight%2Eprofessionaltravelguide%2Ecom%2F2009%2F04%2Fsteve%2Dbierfeldt%2Ddetained%2Dby%2Dtsa%2Dfor%2Ehtml&feature=player_embedded
The full audio version is here http://www.dailynewscaster.com/2009/04/02/audio-full-version-steve-bierfeldt-detained-and-questioned-by-st-louis-tsa/
I do understand both sides, but he was within his rights to not say anything
The full audio version is approx 20 minutes long and I think it's definitely worth listening to. One of his primary concerns being:
This incident with national police is particularly chilling in the shadow of the politically motivated Missouri Fusion Center MIAC Report labeling Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX), his supporters, Campaign for Liberty, and anyone one who believes in conservative issues as a threat to national security.
Great. It's a crime to carry cash now? Carrying cash is suspicious?
Jesus - between that and my Gadsden flag I am so going to be in trouble. :eek:
glockshooter
04-06-09, 20:03
First lets not make the mistake of call the TSA the police. The are in no way a law enforcement entity. I am not sure what the TSA policy is for finding cash on a passenger, but $4700 is not really a lot of money. They MAY have the authority to investigate if they have some reason to believe soming was suspicious, but with only having the audio of the questioning and not know how they got to that point it is hard to make an informed opinion of the situation. Now that being said if it played out as simple as it appears, then I would have to say the TSA was out of line. I as a cop might find it odd that someone without a job has $4700 in cash on them, but this situation does not appear to be the same.
Matt
First lets not make the mistake of call the TSA the police. The are in no way a law enforcement entity. I am not sure what the TSA policy is for finding cash on a passenger, but $4700 is not really a lot of money. They MAY have the authority to investigate if they have some reason to believe soming was suspicious, but with only having the audio of the questioning and not know how they got to that point it is hard to make an informed opinion of the situation. Now that being said if it played out as simple as it appears, then I would have to say the TSA was out of line. I as a cop might find it odd that someone without a job has $4700 in cash on them, but this situation does not appear to be the same.
Matt
The guys threatening to handcuff him and take him to the police station were in fact police. If you listen to the full audio version you'll come to that realization very quickly. TSA can't cuff anybody, arrest them, take them to a police station, etc. According to one report I read there was only 1 TSA guy there and the others were airport police.
I am in NO way trying to slander police or anything of that nature I just wanted to hear some other people's opinions. Thanks for sharing yours.
Interesting case.
A simple explanation at the checkpoint about his identity, affiliation, and reason for carrying the cash wouldn't have garnered nearly as much attention. Discretion being the better part of valor, and all.
Then again, in playing his game, or asserting his rights/keeping government in line (however you view it) Steve reaped a benefit in the subsequent media attention. It will rally their troops.
The idea that it was not safe to disclose affiliation with Ron Paul in MO is much hogwash. There may have been a memo from the fusion center, but I'll bet supper the overwhelming majority of cops hadn't seen it. Much less TSA.
Folks fly with that amount (and more) of cash every day. I have. Both parties decided that this event would go the way it did.
TSA and the airport cops will have egg on their face. One may write a check. Steve Bierfeldt and company will get some mileage out of it.
Interesting that TSA/airport PD allowed him to keep personal property during further inspection. Were he truly "suspicious", he should've been shook, then stripped of everything...especially communication devices. If those guys keep their jobs, they won't make most of those mistakes again, especially not that one.
losbronces
04-06-09, 21:31
First lets not make the mistake of call the TSA the police. The are in no way a law enforcement entity. I am not sure what the TSA policy is for finding cash on a passenger, but $4700 is not really a lot of money. They MAY have the authority to investigate if they have some reason to believe soming was suspicious, but with only having the audio of the questioning and not know how they got to that point it is hard to make an informed opinion of the situation. Now that being said if it played out as simple as it appears, then I would have to say the TSA was out of line. I as a cop might find it odd that someone without a job has $4700 in cash on them, but this situation does not appear to be the same.
Matt
You can carry $9,999.99 before you have to declare it. And $4,700 is not that much money to carry. I have carried more than $5,000 a few times.
Interesting case.
A simple explanation at the checkpoint about his identity, affiliation, and reason for carrying the cash wouldn't have garnered nearly as much attention. Discretion being the better part of valor, and all.
Then again, in playing his game, or asserting his rights/keeping government in line (however you view it) Steve reaped a benefit in the subsequent media attention. It will rally their troops.
The idea that it was not safe to disclose affiliation with Ron Paul in MO is much hogwash. There may have been a memo from the fusion center, but I'll bet supper the overwhelming majority of cops hadn't seen it. Much less TSA.
Folks fly with that amount (and more) of cash every day. I have. Both parties decided that this event would go the way it did.
TSA and the airport cops will have egg on their face. One may write a check. Steve Bierfeldt and company will get some mileage out of it.
Interesting that TSA/airport PD allowed him to keep personal property during further inspection. Were he truly "suspicious", he should've been shook, then stripped of everything...especially communication devices. If those guys keep their jobs, they won't make most of those mistakes again, especially not that one.
Actually that report has been read by more than you think. I do not know about TSA but the report was sent out to state and local agency's. Since it has been found out about by the public, many more have read it. My biggest problem with the report is that it portrays only crazy conservatives when there are just as many crazy libs that do just as many crazy things. Here is the report in question
www.firearmscoalition.org/images/news/miac-militia-2009.pdf
You can carry $9,999.99 before you have to declare it. And $4,700 is not that much money to carry. I have carried more than $5,000 a few times.
I believe that the $10k limit is only if you're entering or exiting the country.
I believe that the $10k limit is only if you're entering or exiting the country.
yep, that is my understanding
(Lest anyone started calling names like in a previous thread, let me state for the record that I did not watch the whole video)
First lets not make the mistake of call the TSA the police. The are in no way a law enforcement entity.
TSA screeners are not police. There are certainly many TSA law enforcement officers, including both TSA investigators and Federal Air Marshals. I'd be willing to bet cash money that the TSA person asking those questions behind close doors was not a screener.
They MAY have the authority to investigate if they have some reason to believe soming was suspicious, but with only having the audio of the questioning and not know how they got to that point it is hard to make an informed opinion of the situation.
TSA has extremely wide latitude in this area. I've been stopped & questioned by TSA before. I've even been "brought into the back room with no windows" ... ooooo, scary.
The idea that it was not safe to disclose affiliation with Ron Paul in MO is much hogwash. There may have been a memo from the fusion center, but I'll bet supper the overwhelming majority of cops hadn't seen it. Much less TSA.
It got quite a bit of play in the media, so I wouldn't be surprised if they were aware of it. Since most of the media play was about how stupid it was, and it was almost immediately followed up with a statement by the State Police that it was a mistake, though, I think the point is still the same: anyone claiming he was afraid he'd be identified as a threat to national security because he'd been to a Ron Paul rally was delusional. Or anxious for media attention.
Interesting that TSA/airport PD allowed him to keep personal property during further inspection. Were he truly "suspicious", he should've been shook, then stripped of everything...especially communication devices. If those guys keep their jobs, they won't make most of those mistakes again, especially not that one.
FWIW, none of the times I've been granted special audience with folks above the screener level has there ever been a pat down, shake down, or removal of any property. I have been surrounded by three very big airport police officers while being questioned, though. :cool:
Man, I should have had a tape recorder. I coulda been famous!
You can carry $9,999.99 before you have to declare it.
You can carry any amount of cash you want within U.S. borders. Banks and businesses have a responsibility to report deposits/expenditures of $10k+ made all in cash but it's still perfectly legal.
I'd like to hear TSA's side of this. Something had to ping them to this guy.
fruitjacket
04-06-09, 23:00
I do understand both sides, but he was within his rights to not say anything
Excuse me??!! What crime did he commit?
FYI - Just found this article stating that the MIAC director has been replaced due to the controversy, "The Missouri State Highway Patrol on Monday replaced the director of an intelligence center which has been under fire after producing a report suggesting militia members often support certain political candidates."
http://www.kansascity.com/news/breaking_news/story/1127068.html
Excuse me??!! What crime did he commit?
I never said that he committed a crime I am just saying that I understand that most people will answer questions , and when someone doesn't it CAN be suspicious. Though it has been my experience that people who are truly up to no good will answer questions no problem they just lie instead. One just has to question them enough to catch them.
I never said that he committed a crime I am just saying that I understand that most people will answer questions , and when someone doesn't it CAN be suspicious. Though it has been my experience that people who are truly up to no good will answer questions no problem they just lie instead. One just has to question them enough to catch them.
Abraxas, I understand exactly what your saying and agree he possibly might have had alot less problems had he just told them what they wanted to hear in the beginning but he chose not to and it's his right to do so.
I'm not picking a fight here but the cop is guilty of not answering the man's question as well... paraphrashing the guy "Am I under legal obligation to answer your questions?" and the cop would never answer his question and would always dodge it after multiple requests by the guy, so by your reasoning the man should be suspicious of the cop and not answer him unless obligated by law.
Abraxas, I understand exactly what your saying and agree he possibly might have had alot less problems had he just told them what they wanted to hear in the beginning but he chose not to and it's his right to do so.
I'm not picking a fight here but the cop is guilty of not answering the man's question as well... paraphrasing the guy "Am I under legal obligation to answer your questions?" and the cop would never answer his question and would always dodge it after multiple requests by the guy, so by your reasoning the man should be suspicious of the cop and not answer him unless obligated by law.
Agreed, that is why I voted that his rights got trampled on. I was merely explaining that I understand both sides, but I do side with him.
I'm not picking a fight here but the cop is guilty of not answering the man's question as well... paraphrashing the guy "Am I under legal obligation to answer your questions?" and the cop would never answer his question and would always dodge it after multiple requests by the guy, so by your reasoning the man should be suspicious of the cop and not answer him unless obligated by law.
I went to a specialty course several years ago that discussed interactions like this, where a detainee/suspect/subject/etc responds by asking what he is, or is not required to answer.
Employees of the entity that produced the training product were being told to respond to the subject with an advisement that they were not obligated to provide them legal advice such as that, that it was the subject's responsibility to know his/her rights, and that they would follow their established guidelines for the interaction otherwise. (I.e. The subject was on his own, but the interviewer would follow the rules.)
I've seen variations of this at other courses, esp I&I, since. There are other and more creative ways to legally extract information from a subject who uses these responses.
The TSA or airport PD guys using that technique is likely not a problem. Judging by their interaction, though, they're not using it because they were trained to but because they want to be difficult too. Vicious circle.
As stated before, this didn't have to go this way, for a variety of reasons.
Another issue to consider: I don't think there is a constitutional right to enter the secured area of an airport, and certainly there is no constitutional right to board an airplane. As such, walking through security subjects you to various intrusions you've volunteered for. If you don't want to be scrutinized, don't fly.
I'd still like to know why TSA pinged on this guy in the first place. It can't only be about the cash.
losbronces
04-07-09, 11:24
(Lest anyone started calling names like in a previous thread, let me state for the record that I did not You can carry any amount of cash you want within U.S. borders. Banks and businesses have a responsibility to report deposits/expenditures of $10k+ made all in cash but it's still perfectly legal.
I'd like to hear TSA's side of this. Something had to ping them to this guy.
Sorry, you are correct. I was thinking about international flights and even then it depends on where you are going with the cash (you do have to declare $10,000 if you are entering the U.S.). Those are the only ones that I've actually carried significant amounts of cash on.
fruitjacket
04-07-09, 11:45
Another issue to consider: I don't think there is a constitutional right to enter the secured area of an airport, and certainly there is no constitutional right to board an airplane. As such, walking through security subjects you to various intrusions you've volunteered for. If you don't want to be scrutinized, don't fly.
I'd still like to know why TSA pinged on this guy in the first place. It can't only be about the cash.
I agree there is no 'right' to board a plane. I'm with you 100% on that.
However, what 'rights' do they have to detain someone who's carrying something legal? Seriously, let's put away everything else and break it down to what it is.
They pulled him out of line because he had a large sum of dollar bills on his person.
How is that a threat to airport security?
This guy was right to basically tell them to pound sand.
Yes, he could have been outta there alot quicker and easier by just telling them the truth, but he DOESN'T HAVE TO. And the detention is the problem here, not the questioning or his lack of responses. He should have never been in a detention room in the first place.
You said you think there's another reason....I agree.
It's because he had Ron Paul bumper stickers and literature and this is in the same state that just released a report stating Ron Paul supporters might be militia 'type' folks.
Great.....so we can't profile Muslim men between the age of 18-40 for security reasons because it might violate their Constitutional Rights (which I agree with BTW), but we can profile Ron Paul supporters??
This shit has got to stop.
I just wrote a lengthy reply and it didn't go through when I tried to post it so here's the quick & condensed version...
In my opinion the private airlines need to hire their own private security instead of swallowing up billions of dollars in tax money. Hire a company that has it's employees treat it's customers/travelers with some respect and a modicum of dignity.
I'm tired of seeing a gaggle of unionized TSA agents BS'ing while I'm walking around in my socks watching some 80 year old lady in a wheelchair getting frisked and wanded while some TSA agent is yelling at everyone and grabbing my twig & berries to ensure there's not a bomb in my shorts.
I travel outside CONUS frequently and much prefer to fly domestically inside of several South American countries I can think of where you're not treated as a criminal.
However, what 'rights' do they have to detain someone who's carrying something legal? Seriously, let's put away everything else and break it down to what it is.
They have the legal authority to question anyone they reasonably believe may be committing a crime or posing a threat to airport/airplane security.
You said you think there's another reason....I agree.
It's because he had Ron Paul bumper stickers and literature and this is in the same state that just released a report stating Ron Paul supporters might be militia 'type' folks.
Is there evidence that this was the reason, or just an assumption?
I'm the first to agree, if he was pulled out because he's a Ron Paul supporter, there are all sorts of issues and someone is going to get his ass handed to him over it. But if there was anything else in his carry-on or checked luggage that raised a flag, or if he was behaving in a way that made screeners, TSA investigators, or anyone else at the airport suspicious then that's a whole different story.
But so far, except for folks on the internet who put two and two together and got seventy-three, I haven't seen anything indicating that the whole MIAC thing actually influenced anyone's decision to stop or question the guy.
Gutshot John
04-07-09, 13:09
I think there is a gray area not covered by the two responses.
He was not charged with a crime, nor did he miss his flight.
He was questioned and released.
Did they profile him? Yep. Did they try to intimidate him? Yep. Were they drunk on their own power? Probably.
Did that violate his Constitutional rights? Meh...not so clear.
fruitjacket
04-07-09, 13:33
They have the legal authority to question anyone they reasonably believe may be committing a crime or posing a threat to airport/airplane security.
Is there evidence that this was the reason, or just an assumption?
I'm the first to agree, if he was pulled out because he's a Ron Paul supporter, there are all sorts of issues and someone is going to get his ass handed to him over it. But if there was anything else in his carry-on or checked luggage that raised a flag, or if he was behaving in a way that made screeners, TSA investigators, or anyone else at the airport suspicious then that's a whole different story.
But so far, except for folks on the internet who put two and two together and got seventy-three, I haven't seen anything indicating that the whole MIAC thing actually influenced anyone's decision to stop or question the guy.
You are correct, it is an assumption about the Ron Paul Supporter portion. I'll see if I can find his 'story' on the forums.
I know he was originally detained because he had a metal box in which the money was being carried in. Once they pulled him aside for the box, they looked inside and saw $4710 in cash and checks.
Where's the evidence to believe he committed a crime??
You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to an attorney present during questioning. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you. Do you understand these rights?
You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to an attorney present during questioning. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you. Do you understand these rights?
What's with the Miranda warning?
You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to an attorney present during questioning. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you. Do you understand these rights?
Was it a custodial interrogation at any point? Again, there's been all sorts of internet hype and speculation but is there any evidence that the guy wasn't free to turn around and leave the airport whenever he wanted?
Was it a custodial interrogation at any point? Again, there's been all sorts of internet hype and speculation but is there any evidence that the guy wasn't free to turn around and leave the airport whenever he wanted?
During the full audio version it becomes readily apparent that he is not free to leave and is threatened with being handcuffed and that he is going to the police station whether he wants to or not.
PRGGodfather
04-07-09, 14:22
We don't ever have to answer questions posed of us, by anyone asking -- unless it is a condition of employment, and failing to answer constitutes insubordination.
Having the authority to question does not mean anyone is required to answer.
From what I could tell, no one was answering anyone's questions.
It's pretty much human nature to answer all but the most private of questions. Cops exploit that trait regularly. It's how we get information. The questions aren't always specific, but if we couldn't ask questions, we would never learn anything.
Information is power. And we have the right to not say a word. Mutes have it pretty easy that way.
Yes, preferring to decline to answer anyone's questions may be impolite, but it is NOT illegal. It's pretty much that simple. This is not even some arcane law school question -- it's one based on practicality and fundamental human right. What the heck are people going to do if I keep my mouth shut? Beat it out of me?
Now, as cops, we don't particularly like this simple truth -- but that's too bad. Compelling people to speak is tough, unless there is a court order -- and even then, we cannot compel anyone to incriminate themselves. Period. He could have said, "Yes, I refuse to answer all questions." So what? Make the case or cut him lose!
The cops also could have answered HIS question with, "No, you are not required to answer, but answering sure would satisfy our curiosity and make this go more smoothly. You can refuse, and since this is unusual and could be consistent with some criminal activity, we will dig to where it takes us, which could take a little bit of time. We just want some assurance that no crime is being committed, and your answering such questions will greatly speed up this process. If everything is reasonable, this can be over with right now."
This little fiasco is a classic case of a "failure to communicate." If the cops had just answered his question, and then explained why their suspicion was piqued -- this could have been a professional contact instead of a measuring contest.
Americans always have the right to remain silent, even if most people talk too bloody much in the first place.
"Respect my authority!" ~ Eric Cartman, Southpark
Look. I'll clear this up for everyone.
If the recording was 100% complete and this was the entire story........
If it was actual LE. He was detained and not free to leave. The "officers" made that clear. Miranda should have been read if they were going to ask him questions. (if it wasn't prior to the recording)
If they weren't LE and under force or threat of force kept him from freely moving about. We have a crime. *this comes with a giant disclaimer. I know shit about TSA and their authority. They might be able to do things I'm unaware of.
What you have here is an authority figure(s) getting their pussy hurt and forgetting the difference between their customers and the bad guys. I've had guys JUST LIKE THIS GUY and I applaud them for knowing their rights, asking the right questions, and behaving respectfully. The detained was NEVER out of line at all in any way. He has a RIGHT to be a dick and yet he wasn't. He had a REASON to be a dick and yet he wasn't.
Would it have been easier for him to just answer the questions. ABSO****INGLUTELY, BUT!!!! He wasn't clear if he had to or not and so, did the right thing by trying to find out. The guy has every reason/right/responsibility to inquire as to his rights.
It would be easier to just submit to searches of persons and property in every day life. It would be easier to just submit to increased personal data collection and surveillance security in everyday life. But it doesn't make it right. TSA is a special case again. I know nothing about TSA and their latitude. I'm speaking in general terms in this paragraph.
Alot of good posts and helpful insight by all. Thanks for everyone's input.
What's with the Miranda warning?
I really quoted it as a tongue in cheek type answer.It's seems to me he should have been read or advised of his rights. No matter what situation you're in innocent or guilty , you cannot make a person answer questions.
Actually that report has been read by more than you think. I do not know about TSA but the report was sent out to state and local agency's. Since it has been found out about by the public, many more have read it. My biggest problem with the report is that it portrays only crazy conservatives when there are just as many crazy libs that do just as many crazy things. Here is the report in question
www.firearmscoalition.org/images/news/miac-militia-2009.pdf
Having received and disseminated a variety of fusion center reports, intel items, and other sundry memos, I can tell you that few cops read them, few of those that do process the info therein, and few of those actually use the info. :D
CarlosDJackal
04-07-09, 19:53
I'm sorry, but the guy was being a smartass. All he had to do was answer the damned questions!! I've run across many of these "experts" and curbside lawyers who, instead of just answering a simple question, will drag things out and then complain about how they are "harrassed".
If this had happened out on a public streets, then I would side with the guy. But it happened in an Airport; which is not public domain.
That being said, since the morons at the state that this occured had come out with an assinine criteria that would have labelled him as a "domestic terrorist", I can fully understand his resistance in voluntarily providing the information that they were asking for.
Interesting encounter though.
I'm sorry, but the guy was being a smartass.
I completely and wholeheartedly disagree.
All he had to do was answer the damned questions!!
True but. He DOESN'T HAVE TO. That's the point I'm making. Getting angry because someone decides to not talk to you is the trait of a complete asshole. Like the guys on that tape. As LE, I've refused a search of my personal vehicle. (out of state incident) Deputy's instincts were way off, it was my right to not let him and I exercised it. Would it have been easier to let him? No doubt but, his instincts were way off and he was far to comfortable with getting his own way, I didn't want him in my truck, I didn't want my family standing on the side of the road, etc. So I told him no. You don't get to search just because you want to. Sometimes it would be nice for us if it was that way BUT, dangerous road that leads someone and a complete disservice to the public.
I've run across many of these "experts" and curbside lawyers who, instead of just answering a simple question, will drag things out and then complain about how they are "harrassed".
The guy repeatedly said he was unfamiliar with the law. He was asking about his rights. No "expert" anywhere that I see? Shit, like I said, I don't know TSA's latitude so I would ask similar questions if I was put in a situation that I was uncomfortable with.
If this had happened out on a public streets, then I would side with the guy. But it happened in an Airport; which is not public domain.
Again, I don't know "Airport law" or TSA SOP so I can't comment on if it's "public" or not. If you are right, and it is "private" property than anyone in there agrees to behave a certain way, not matter what, or they are out. I'm all for private property laws I just didn't assume that an airport was deemed as such. I guess it would make sense if it was as airlines are private etc.? Anyone have a definitive answer on that? Regardless, LE must operate under statute and their SOP regardless so again, if it was in fact LEOs on that tape, they were out of line.
That being said, since the morons at the state that this occured had come out with an assinine criteria that would have labelled him as a "domestic terrorist", I can fully understand his resistance in voluntarily providing the information that they were asking for.
This paragraph is why I applaud the gentleman for doing what he did. He refused to allow their asinine SOPs to shit on an innocent person.
Interesting encounter though.
Surely.
*disclaimer again for those who undoublty will read this post and not the other. I know nothing of TSA.
I am not an attorney
But I believe that he was unlawfully detained
What exactly is the limit of cash you may posses without being "taken downtown" ?
I love how even after the FBI releases him the TSA employee (with dellusiuons of grandeur) does not want to let him through screening
If the guy was not free to leave due to government interference and was being questioned by a government official regarding potential criminal activity, he needed to be Mirandized.
I have to say, though, that I disagree with ZDL's interpretation on one point. I know the guy kept asking, "Do I have to answer?" but at least to me he doesn't sound sincere. The guy is what, 24? I'm pretty sure he's seen an episode of Law & Order or old TJ Hooker reruns. He was being a smartass and, at least as I heard it, almost taunting the TSA guy with it. He knew he was taping the whole thing and wanted to get them on tape saying that yes, he had to answer their questions. Simple as that.
Remember, he knew this was all being taped. He knew this was going to be high drama on the internet. It's a mistake to assume that didn't play a role in his behavior.
But I do agree that we should all be free to exercise our rights. I've refused to turn over property voluntarily to a federal LEO. "Get a warrant and I'll be right here waiting for you, no problem." While I've never had a cop ask to search my vehicle, that would be my same approach. I wouldn't say "NO" I'd just say sure, I'll wait here while you get a warrant.
I just have a very hard time seeing the "victim" in this case as having clean hands.
If the guy was not free to leave due to government interference and was being questioned by a government official regarding potential criminal activity, he needed to be Mirandized.
I have to say, though, that I disagree with ZDL's interpretation on one point. I know the guy kept asking, "Do I have to answer?" but at least to me he doesn't sound sincere. The guy is what, 24? I'm pretty sure he's seen an episode of Law & Order or old TJ Hooker reruns. He was being a smartass and, at least as I heard it, almost taunting the TSA guy with it. He knew he was taping the whole thing and wanted to get them on tape saying that yes, he had to answer their questions. Simple as that.
Remember, he knew this was all being taped. He knew this was going to be high drama on the internet. It's a mistake to assume that didn't play a role in his behavior.
But I do agree that we should all be free to exercise our rights. I've refused to turn over property voluntarily to a federal LEO. "Get a warrant and I'll be right here waiting for you, no problem." While I've never had a cop ask to search my vehicle, that would be my same approach. I wouldn't say "NO" I'd just say sure, I'll wait here while you get a warrant.
I just have a very hard time seeing the "victim" in this case as having clean hands.
Maybe. My powers of perception have been wrong before but:
People try to "catch" LE everyday. Cellphone cameras etc. Follow the law, follow SOP, and it's difficult to get into trouble. If the guy wasn't free to leave due to probable cause, (whatever TSA's criteria is for PC) then just tell him as such. Tell him he doesn't have to answer the questions but if he doesn't, he's not getting on the plane till they get it figured out. No harm. The guy gets his right to remain silent exercised, TSA keeps their "terrorist" of the plane, and everyone did right. I bet the guy would have just talked if they told him he was going to miss his flight.
I would become agitated if I had to ask 20 different times what my rights were to someone in authority who had the power to detain/jail me. Maybe his tone changed to annoyance a few times but overall I think he was doing the right thing.
Audio taping is just a good idea all the way around regardless if you can swing it. Can assume TSA was recording the interview as well?
If he had dickish intentions (getting caught on purpose and recording it just to create internet drama) he didn't behave as such. "sir" "yes sir" "I'd be happy to" "no sir" "am I required to answer the question sir?" "I don't know the exact amount sir" Good behavior considering the ridiculousness of the situation imo.
I think ZDL is right on the money.
CarlosDJackal
04-08-09, 13:40
...I just have a very hard time seeing the "victim" in this case as having clean hands.
Couldn't agree with you more. When you put a party who likes flaunting their authority with a party who likes to challenge any authority, you end up with an exercise in futility.
While I agree that we must be careful of freely giving up our individual rights, especially our right to privacy; we must also consider which battles we should fight. There is a time and place for everything.
As someone who has worked the LE Checkpoint at an Airport, I have seen way too many of these idiots drag encounters out by refusing to answer simple, straightforward questions or provide other information that could have ended the encounter in a timely manner.
Case-in-point: Just about a year after 9-11 a man spends almost a half-hour fuming and getting angry as baggage inspectors repeatedly searching and running his carry-on luggage through the x-ray machine. When asked if he had any sharp objects in his carry-on he angrily responds that he did not. After about the third or fourth time the bag was searched, the TSA Inspector finds a small case with about a dozen syringes. Because of the way they were tightly packed, they came up on the x-ray as if it was one large sharp object.
At this point this guy informs us (I was standing behind him at this point ready to jump him if he tried to do something or run away) that he was a Diabetic and that he had a prescription for the syringes. I addressed this asshole and told him that he would have gotten past the checkpoint a long time ago had he said something about them or pointed out where they were stored in the first place. But as a result, not only did he cause a delay on his part, he caused a delay with the other passengers behind him as well as wasting my time and those of at least two TSA Inspectors (one of whom was the Supervisor).
Sometimes it is easier to just answer a simple question ("it's money I earned selling publications and bumper stickers") than it is to "resist". Now if this was out on the street or in my own home I would tell these guys to get a warrant, arrest me, or let me go. But in an Airport Checkpoint all he did was waste the time of individuals whose efforts were better off utilized scrutinizing others.
If people on both sides of the badge would only get their heads out of their asses and used their intelligence and COMMUNICATE (a lost art) we would probably avoid most of these types of situations. JM2CW.
They have the legal authority to question anyone they reasonably believe may be committing a crime or posing a threat to airport/airplane security.
A police officer has the legal authority to walk up to anyone on the street and ask questions (consensual interview). That person being questioned has right to walk away, to answer or to not answer, etc. Even I as a private citizen can walk up to anyone I want, anywhere, and start asking questions. That doesn't mean the person has to cooperate or can't tell me to piss off.
The real question here in my mind isn't "can they ask questions and what are the limits on what they can ask about." They can request any information they want, I suppose.
The issue boils down to how much of a wall can be thrown up, and what can be "not answered" before they are denied entry into the secure area.
Case-in-point: Just about a year after 9-11 a man spends almost a half-hour fuming and getting angry as baggage inspectors repeatedly searching and running his carry-on luggage through the x-ray machine. When asked if he had any sharp objects in his carry-on he angrily responds that he did not. After about the third or fourth time the bag was searched, the TSA Inspector finds a small case with about a dozen syringes. Because of the way they were tightly packed, they came up on the x-ray as if it was one large sharp object.
This reminds me of a situation I had coming back. My point is for people to remember that often questions are asked because things look different than they really are and misunderstandings occur. Being helpful helps everyone if you have nothing to hide at the airport and the questions are reasonable.
We were coming back from Japan (my wife is from Japan -- me norwegian english descent white boy -- blond and blue eyed). For some reason at customs we got shunted to the "take a closer look" line and had all our bags (which were full of purchases of items) put through the X-Ray machine. We were allowed to take all of our bags except one or two. Those ones they wanted to inspect. They kept asking if we had switchblades or pocket knives etc. I kept saying no, but the guy kept asking. I did say we had a ceramic kitchen knife but that was not what he was looking for and kept asking over and over about switchblades or similar knives. I kept saying NO. He opened the bag and was digging around and came up with a plastic shopping bag and asked what was in there. I said something like "Oh, that -- those are the nail clippers" -- we had bought like 7 or so nail clippers in Japan as all our family and friends wanted one [far superior to what you can buy here as long as you buy the Japan made ones and not the chinese or korean imports]. He then looked inside the bag and saw that I was telling the truth, laughed about it and explained it looked like a switchblade or collection of knives on the Xray (all bundled together in the plastic shopping bag) and he let me go. He had seem something and thought I was lying or something. He was mistaken about it. I did not get all pushy and answered as best as I could what he was asking me. Innocent mistake on his part. He was not trying to be overreaching or anything. These guys are not perfect and put up with enough *ssholes.
Couldn't agree with you more. When you put a party who likes flaunting their authority with a party who likes to challenge any authority, you end up with an exercise in futility.
While I agree that we must be careful of freely giving up our individual rights, especially our right to privacy; we must also consider which battles we should fight. There is a time and place for everything.
As someone who has worked the LE Checkpoint at an Airport, I have seen way too many of these idiots drag encounters out by refusing to answer simple, straightforward questions or provide other information that could have ended the encounter in a timely manner.
Case-in-point: Just about a year after 9-11 a man spends almost a half-hour fuming and getting angry as baggage inspectors repeatedly searching and running his carry-on luggage through the x-ray machine. When asked if he had any sharp objects in his carry-on he angrily responds that he did not. After about the third or fourth time the bag was searched, the TSA Inspector finds a small case with about a dozen syringes. Because of the way they were tightly packed, they came up on the x-ray as if it was one large sharp object.
At this point this guy informs us (I was standing behind him at this point ready to jump him if he tried to do something or run away) that he was a Diabetic and that he had a prescription for the syringes. I addressed this asshole and told him that he would have gotten past the checkpoint a long time ago had he said something about them or pointed out where they were stored in the first place. But as a result, not only did he cause a delay on his part, he caused a delay with the other passengers behind him as well as wasting my time and those of at least two TSA Inspectors (one of whom was the Supervisor).
Sometimes it is easier to just answer a simple question ("it's money I earned selling publications and bumper stickers") than it is to "resist". Now if this was out on the street or in my own home I would tell these guys to get a warrant, arrest me, or let me go. But in an Airport Checkpoint all he did was waste the time of individuals whose efforts were better off utilized scrutinizing others.
If people on both sides of the badge would only get their heads out of their asses and used their intelligence and COMMUNICATE (a lost art) we would probably avoid most of these types of situations. JM2CW.
I agree it would be easier most times and in the case you described perhaps the guy was just being difficult. But, the recording is a different scenario entirely.
Did you tell the diabetic he isn't going anywhere till he tells you what is sharp or you figure it out? If you did, did he then comply or tell you to **** off? Sometimes telling people what they are up against is the nudge they need to cooperate. Works for me sometimes at least.
Did you get mad at the guy? Mouth off to him after he decided to not cooperate? If so, why if I can ask? You are getting paid to do what you do. He is about to miss his flight AND piss off a mob of people behind him.... He's the jackass making it harder on himself. You're just doing your job. You have 2 options in that scenario non of which require anyone to be a jackass. 1. Let him go not feeling at ease about it. 2. Informing him he isn't going anywhere till he cooperates or you are at ease about what the sharp objects are. That all falls under what you collect a pay check for. And choosing option 2 puts you on the better side of the decision making spectrum in my opinion regardless of what everyone else thinks.
My issue wasn't the detaining of this man. Like I said, I have NO idea what is construed as PC for TSA. My issue was the straight dickishness of the people talking to this guy. No reason for it. Inform him he has a right to do what he is doing, he has a right to not answer question but if he chooses to exercise that right.. Unfortunately he is going to miss his plane. Then walk out of the room for a few mins. Let the lady on the intercom come over and say "final boarding call for flight...." My bet is he'll sing like a bird and they wouldn't have exposed themselves to scrutiny or investigation as to their inappropriate behavior.
Sometimes you have to bring the thunder... other times you're just making noise. They should have handled this a completely different way. LE doesn't get to "get dirty behind a school bus" because some guy is a dick. The law is entirely on our side and we can **** someone up 20 ways to Easter with it. Why cross the line of law or even etiquette just to get a jab in on a dick weed and expose yourself to losing your job or making it that much more difficult for people to respect LE? Doesn't make sense to me.
This reminds me of a situation I had coming back. My point is for people to remember that often questions are asked because things look different than they really are and misunderstandings occur. Being helpful helps everyone if you have nothing to hide at the airport and the questions are reasonable.
The problem sometimes occurs because the person asking the questions just starts asking them - and they can seem bizarre or intrusive to the person being questioned - without providing any explanation or context.
For example, I was flying out of my hometown airport a few months ago and got flagged for "extra security screening," probably because my itinerary had changed at the last minute. Oh well, it happens. They swabbed my shoes and my computer bag and then a supervisor came over with a very serious look and started peppering me with questions about where I worked, where I had been, etc. I gave her a quizzical look and wouldn't answer at first, and she was not happy about that.
Eventually she explained that my computer bag had tested positive for TNT - certainly a startling revelation for me given that I've never touched TNT in my life. She was trying to figure out if I had a job or had been somewhere (like a field with nitrate fertilizer) that might have exposed me or my bag to something that would trip the machine.
If she had just explained that from the beginning it would have made for a much friendlier encounter. Just like the person looking for the "switchblade" in your bag could have just asked nicely, once, rather than repeatedly in a manner that seemed accusatory. Something like "Sir, there is something in your bag that looks like a switchblade on the X-ray. I just need to look inside the bag to see what it is and then you'll be on your way."
If the guy was not free to leave due to government interference and was being questioned by a government official regarding potential criminal activity, he needed to be Mirandized.
I have to say, though, that I disagree with ZDL's interpretation on one point. I know the guy kept asking, "Do I have to answer?" but at least to me he doesn't sound sincere. The guy is what, 24? I'm pretty sure he's seen an episode of Law & Order or old TJ Hooker reruns. He was being a smartass and, at least as I heard it, almost taunting the TSA guy with it. He knew he was taping the whole thing and wanted to get them on tape saying that yes, he had to answer their questions. Simple as that.
Remember, he knew this was all being taped. He knew this was going to be high drama on the internet. It's a mistake to assume that didn't play a role in his behavior.
But I do agree that we should all be free to exercise our rights. I've refused to turn over property voluntarily to a federal LEO. "Get a warrant and I'll be right here waiting for you, no problem." While I've never had a cop ask to search my vehicle, that would be my same approach. I wouldn't say "NO" I'd just say sure, I'll wait here while you get a warrant.
I just have a very hard time seeing the "victim" in this case as having clean hands.
I would respectfully disagree
He knew he was being taped, so he made certain to get the arresting morons on tape violating his rights.
And just like having $$$ since when is it a crime to be a smarta$$ anyway???
The unfortunate fact is that while many(most) law enforcement officials are great people, they are still people
You give an a$$hole a badge and he does not automatically stop being an a$$hole
Even the good ones have bad days
But I listened to the whole tape and if those TSA guys had paid attention they might have realized they were going too far
Instead, the one guy refuses to "get it" even after the FBI guy spells it out
I hope this gets a lot of play, and this guy sues their pants off
Only then will things like this stop happeneing
EzGoingKev
04-09-09, 10:55
You give an a$$hole a badge and he does not automatically stop being an a$$hole
Asshole + badge = even bigger asshole.
Last time I checked having $4700 in cash on you is not a crime. IMO since the guy was not breaking any laws he had a right to his none of your business approach.
CarlosDJackal
04-09-09, 11:47
Asshole + badge = even bigger asshole.
Last time I checked having $4700 in cash on you is not a crime. IMO since the guy was not breaking any laws he had a right to his none of your business approach.
Asshole +tape = just as big an asshole
Unfortunately, having large amounts of cash does provide PC in most cases for further scrutiny. You can thank the cash-carrying drug dealers for this. Add to that that in some jurisdictions, any large amounts of cash that are confiscated from a convicted dealer ends up in that jurisdiction's coffers. This gives people further motivation to ask.
Like I said, if you were to take the Inspectors, LEOs, and the "victim" in this case and replace them with level-headed, mature and civilized individuals who learned to properly communicate with other human beings; this would never have gone as long as it should have.
I will repeat what I had said before (and is once again being ignored by individuals who have an axe to grind against one side or the other): Any encounter between those who likes to flaunt their authority and those who likes to challenge authority will end up in a pissing contest that can only end badly.
That is exactly what you have here.
This report today http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30118469/. Maybe they should clean up their own house.
Asshole +tape = just as big an asshole
Unfortunately, having large amounts of cash does provide PC in most cases for further scrutiny. You can thank the cash-carrying drug dealers for this. Add to that that in some jurisdictions, any large amounts of cash that are confiscated from a convicted dealer ends up in that jurisdiction's coffers. This gives people further motivation to ask.
Like I said, if you were to take the Inspectors, LEOs, and the "victim" in this case and replace them with level-headed, mature and civilized individuals who learned to properly communicate with other human beings; this would never have gone as long as it should have.
I will repeat what I had said before (and is once again being ignored by individuals who have an axe to grind against one side or the other): Any encounter between those who likes to flaunt their authority and those who likes to challenge authority will end up in a pissing contest that can only end badly.
That is exactly what you have here.
So go along to get along
Because the "authorities" have the ability to screw up your day they can do anything they want to and you need to make it easier for them. Perhaps we would live in less of a police state if more people were willing to at the very least make the authorities play by the rules.
John Farnum told me years ago...be polite, be respectful but do not give an inch on your rights. And do not for a minute believe that you completely understand your rights, because all it takes is one activist judge to reinvent them
There is a very real possibility that this guy could have been all chatty with the TSA, and the picture of cooperation only to still find himself in a dark room but without any (future) legal recourse
Your honor the suspect volunteered to be held without access to counsel and to have his funds confiscated
He framed their action perfectly and removed any doubt that they were acting legally or rationally. The only thing I would have added was the question "Am I under arrest"
The reluctance on the part of the TSA/Police shows that they realized they were on shaky ground......they just decided to "punish" this guy for not kowtowing
thopkins22
04-11-09, 11:44
If he had just answered the question would he have been on his way without the hassle? Sure. Was he an asshole making a mountain out of a molehill? Maybe. Was he looking for the guy to explain his rights, or just tell him the incorrect bit and say that he had to tell him? Doesn't matter...they guy did neither. It's astonishing that the TSA/airport police kept asking the same stupid question, despite the obvious fact that the guy had a firm grasp on his rights.
But the point is that the government had no right to ask about it. Even if he was traveling internationally, he wouldn't have had to declare that cash. What's next? "That's an awfully expensive watch for a (insert job here,) where did it come from?" What ticked me off were all the idle threats about the DEA and FBI. And yet, when the FBI showed up, the guy was on his way in about thirty seconds.
The point of TSA is to keep passengers safe on an airplane...nothing more. They aren't there to act as screeners for other federal agencies. The guy ranting about "you look suspicious to me, I don't have to let you through MY checkpoint," clearly didn't understand his job.
I'm left with the overwhelming desire to travel with a lot of cash. I'm also reminded of something that every lawyer and police officer I know has told me...don't talk to the police about anything in a situation like that without a lawyer.
Fox News' online show "Freedom Watch" explained it well.
I've read some interesting comments regarding this incident.
Several people have said things like "all he had to do was answer the questions", while other people have said the point was that "he didn't have to answer any questions". I agree with the latter. He didn't have to answer any questions.
At the point where the fellow asked if he was free to go and he was told no, he was under arrest. What was the probable cause for his arrest? Failing to answer questions that he wasn't obligated to? That wouldn't make a bit of sense: arrest someone for failing to answer questions and then have to tell them that they have the right to remain silent...?
They have the legal authority to question anyone they reasonably believe may be committing a crime or posing a threat to airport/airplane security.
In my mind the question is what reasonable suspicion was there of any crime or threat?
I think there is a gray area not covered by the two responses.
He was not charged with a crime, nor did he miss his flight.
He was questioned and released.
Did they profile him? Yep. Did they try to intimidate him? Yep. Were they drunk on their own power? Probably.
Did that violate his Constitutional rights? Meh...not so clear.
He was arrested. The question, I think, is whether there was probable cause to arrest him.
Was it a custodial interrogation at any point? Again, there's been all sorts of internet hype and speculation but is there any evidence that the guy wasn't free to turn around and leave the airport whenever he wanted?
If the guy was not free to leave due to government interference and was being questioned by a government official regarding potential criminal activity, he needed to be Mirandized.
He asked if he was free to go and he was told no.
I know the guy kept asking, "Do I have to answer?" but at least to me he doesn't sound sincere. The guy is what, 24? I'm pretty sure he's seen an episode of Law & Order or old TJ Hooker reruns. He was being a smartass and, at least as I heard it, almost taunting the TSA guy with it. He knew he was taping the whole thing and wanted to get them on tape saying that yes, he had to answer their questions. Simple as that.
Remember, he knew this was all being taped. He knew this was going to be high drama on the internet. It's a mistake to assume that didn't play a role in his behavior.
...
I just have a very hard time seeing the "victim" in this case as having clean hands.
I think you may be right. But, they played right into it. And it still doesn't have anything to do with the bottom-line question: was it a legit stop or not?
Couldn't agree with you more. When you put a party who likes flaunting their authority with a party who likes to challenge any authority, you end up with an exercise in futility.
How true!
While I agree that we must be careful of freely giving up our individual rights, especially our right to privacy; we must also consider which battles we should fight. There is a time and place for everything.
Have to disagree somewhat here. I think any battle over rights is worth fighting. The manner in which it's fought is debatable.
Just about a year after 9-11 a man spends almost a half-hour fuming and getting angry as baggage inspectors repeatedly searching and running his carry-on luggage through the x-ray machine. When asked if he had any sharp objects in his carry-on he angrily responds that he did not. After about the third or fourth time the bag was searched, the TSA Inspector finds a small case with about a dozen syringes. Because of the way they were tightly packed, they came up on the x-ray as if it was one large sharp object.
I think the difference here is that the screeners saw something potentially dangerous.
If people on both sides of the badge would only get their heads out of their asses and used their intelligence and COMMUNICATE (a lost art) we would probably avoid most of these types of situations.
The biggest obstacle: ego.
The reluctance on the part of the TSA/Police shows that they realized they were on shaky ground......they just decided to "punish" this guy for not kowtowing
I too got that impression about halfway through the audio.
In my mind the question is what reasonable suspicion was there of any crime or threat?
I have the same question. The reason it's a question is because we only have the media spotlight guy's version of events. But there's no doubt that if the stop wasn't legit, the whole thing was a huge mistake on TSA's part.
He asked if he was free to go and he was told no.
Was he told "no" by a government employee who had the ability & authority to enforce it?
I think you may be right. But, they played right into it. And it still doesn't have anything to do with the bottom-line question: was it a legit stop or not?
I don't think that is the bottom line, though. You and I both know there are illegitimate and pretextual stops all the time. The problem here is that this issue got way out of hand because both parties wanted to butt heads.
The Ron Paul guy could simply have said, "I'm not answering that question" or "that's none of your business." He didn't. He kept playing it out because he hoped the TSA guy would say, on tape, that he had to say where the money came from. At least, that's my gut feeling. He wasn't unsure of his rights. He knew exactly what they were. He was being a pompous little know-it-all who thought he could outsmart the cops and have something really explosive for the Fox News folks to play.
The guy doesn't come across as innocent to me at all. And because of that, I have to wonder what else he might have done to help make this whole incident start in the first place. As many others in this thread have pointed out, plenty of folks travel with large sums of cash and don't get picked up or picked on by TSA. What did this kid do that set off their radar? Until we know that, we don't really know who was right and who was wrong.
Was he told "no" by a government employee who had the ability & authority to enforce it?
Yeah, two of the airport coppers. One of them threatened to put him in handcuffs if he didn't come along quietly.
Yeah, two of the airport coppers. One of them threatened to put him in handcuffs if he didn't come along quietly.
Unless something changed since I took the bar in '96, I'm pretty sure that makes it a custodial interrogation at that point. :cool:
thopkins22
04-11-09, 20:13
The guy doesn't come across as innocent to me at all. And because of that, I have to wonder what else he might have done to help make this whole incident start in the first place.
It's in the audio. The guy who told him he was free to go at the end asked the TSA/airport police what initiated the stop.
FBI/plainclothes officer: "You guys stopped him because of the metal box?"
TSA/airport police: "Well, that and the large sum of money that was in there. So I had him out there, I tried to ask him some questions to clear things up. If he had answered those he would have been on his way by now, but he started this little game with the 'double speak.' So I brought him in here and tried to ask him again, but he continued with his little game...I kept getting that standard response."
FBI/plainclothes: "So these are campaign contributions for Ron Paul?"
Steve Bierfeldt: "Yes."
FBI/plainclothes: "You're free to go."
I don't think he would have downplayed to the superior why he made the stop.
If that's really all it was -- a metal box with cash in it -- then I agree, someone went out of his way to find an excuse to question the kid.
The kid's general demeanor just makes me picture him acting suspiciously and otherwise trying to ping their radar. I guess I just have a hard time believing he happened to have a tape recorder on him, especially since the portion of the tape I listened to clearly had him trying to goad the TSA guy into saying something wrong ...
I don't think that is the bottom line, though. You and I both know there are illegitimate and pretextual stops all the time. The problem here is that this issue got way out of hand because both parties wanted to butt heads.
Now, now -- just because illegitimate and pretextual stops are made all the time doesn't make it OK. If they made a bad stop and got pinched, doom on them. What's that saying -- "don't start no shit, won't be no shit"? :cool:
...I have to wonder what else he might have done to help make this whole incident start in the first place. As many others in this thread have pointed out, plenty of folks travel with large sums of cash and don't get picked up or picked on by TSA. What did this kid do that set off their radar? Until we know that, we don't really know who was right and who was wrong.
Here's the official blurb from the TSA. Nobody's been able to get an answer to what constitutes a "large amount of cash" or on what basis "criminal activity" was suspected. AFAIK, the only other items in the box were political publications, which is probably why the tinfoil hats went on about the stop being because he was a supporter of Ron Paul.
"At approximately 6:50 p.m. on March 29, 2009, a metal box alarmed the X-ray machine at Lambert-St. Louis International Airport, triggering the need for additional screening. Because the box contained a number of items including a large amount of cash, all of which needed to be removed to be properly screened, it was deemed more appropriate to continue the screening process in a private area. A Transportation Security Administration (TSA) employee and members of the St. Louis Airport Police Department can be heard on the audio recording. The tone and language used by the TSA employee was inappropriate. TSA holds its employees to the highest professional standards. TSA will continue to investigate this matter and take appropriate action.
Movements of large amounts of cash through the checkpoint may be investigated by law enforcement authorities if criminal activity is suspected. As a general rule, passengers are required to cooperate with the screening process. Cooperation may involve answering questions about their property, including why they are carrying a large sum of cash. A passenger who refuses to answer questions may be referred to appropriate authorities for further inquiry."
Unless something changed since I took the bar in '96, I'm pretty sure that makes it a custodial interrogation at that point. :cool:
Which, if it was done resulting from a stop without probable cause = false arrest/imprisonment, yes? Would they have also been required to read him his Miranda rights at the time he was told he wasn't free to go? They did continue to ask questions after that.
I guess I just have a hard time believing he happened to have a tape recorder on him, especially since the portion of the tape I listened to clearly had him trying to goad the TSA guy into saying something wrong ...
It was some sort of smartphone/PDA in his shirt pocket. He was asked about it during a telephone interview on Fox.
I don't get the impression that he went up to the checkpoint with the intention of starting a confrontation. Did he capitalize on it when it happened? Maybe so.
thopkins22
04-11-09, 20:47
The kid's general demeanor just makes me picture him acting suspiciously and otherwise trying to ping their radar. I guess I just have a hard time believing he happened to have a tape recorder on him, especially since the portion of the tape I listened to clearly had him trying to goad the TSA guy into saying something wrong ...
I agree that he was upset about being questioned, and knowing full well that he didn't have to answer, tried to get them to say that he did.
But he didn't have a separate hidden recorder. Iphones have a program where you tap the screen a few times and it'll start recording. I don't think he went in looking for trouble.
If that's really all it was -- a metal box with cash in it -- then I agree, someone went out of his way to find an excuse to question the kid.
The kid's general demeanor just makes me picture him acting suspiciously and otherwise trying to ping their radar. I guess I just have a hard time believing he happened to have a tape recorder on him, especially since the portion of the tape I listened to clearly had him trying to goad the TSA guy into saying something wrong ...
Todd - He used a voice recording application on his iPhone. Press a key and it turns your phone into a portable sound recorder. An example of one is here http://recordertheapp.com/.
Hope those M&Ps come out soon! Have a great weekend everyone!
At 24 or 25 I would have been far more impolite than he was, the TSA and the airport cops were being absolute assholes and the fact that he had money was non of their damn business.
It's disgusting to hear them on the tape acting like interrogating thugs.
At 35 I would have told them to pound sand.
Cameron
A lot of assumptions being made to get to the opinions some of you are arriving at. I find dealing with the evidence is a more accurate method of arriving at an accurate conclusion. YMMV. :cool:
thopkins22
04-11-09, 21:10
...the fact that he had money was non of their damn business.
It's disgusting to here them on the tape acting like interrogating thugs.
Exactly. It didn't matter WHY he had money, and apparently that was the only thing they were trying to figure out. Unless he was a true idiot and said that he had this money from drug sales(even then it's not their job,) what the hell do they need to know for?
I've had TSA ask me why I was carrying a laptop to Brazil while on a tourist visa. I explained that it was for internet pornography. Next time I come back I think I'll bring $9,999 in my pocket.
Now, now -- just because illegitimate and pretextual stops are made all the time doesn't make it OK.
Actually, pretextual stops are constitutional, though some state governments/courts have outlawed them. It varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.
Would they have also been required to read him his Miranda rights at the time he was told he wasn't free to go? They did continue to ask questions after that.
Police only need to make a suspect aware of his Miranda rights when they are questioning a suspect who is actually or effectively detained. Even then, contrary to some folks' understanding, failing to read Miranda rights doesn't mean the guy is free to go. It just means that the statements he made cannot be used against him. If the police do Mirandize and the suspect later re-confesses, that's legal.
But he didn't have a separate hidden recorder. Iphones have a program where you tap the screen a few times and it'll start recording. I don't think he went in looking for trouble.
Understood. I have the same app on my phone. I'd never think to turn it on when being questioned by a police officer ... in my state that would be illegal. But Missouri (where this took place) is a single-party consent state so it's legal to tape a conversation you're party to even if others in the conversation don't know it.
EzGoingKev
04-12-09, 21:11
Any encounter between those who likes to flaunt their authority and those who likes to challenge authority will end up in a pissing contest that can only end badly.
John Q Citizen can be an asshole. I am not saying it is right, but there is no law against it.
TSA people and law enforcement officers are being paid to be professionals and when they are on the job there is an expectation of professional conduct. When you engage an asshole at his level you -
a) escalate the situation
b) open yourself and possibly your employer/organization to negative consequences
c) possibly jeopardize the legal standings of the case
The saying is "Deflate, not escalate". Maybe it is just my opinion, but I really did not hear the officers/screeners deflating the situation.
I am flying all the time because of work and can see the difference between TSA and security of practically all major airports in the world. TSA in many cases very unprofessional and sometimes show bad attitude. Just compare with Frankfurt or Narita. ElAl is a separate story.
There is no Constitutional authority for the TSA to even operate.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.