TSA Responds to Detainment of Campaign for Liberty Staffer

Radley Balko | April 6, 2009

The TSA has responded on its blog to last week's story about the detainment of Steve Bierfeldt, a staffer for Ron Paul's Campaign for Liberty organization, at a St. Louis airport. The staffer recorded his interaction with TSA agents and police officers while he was detained, apparently for not giving a satisfactory explanation why he was carrying $4,700 in cash. The TSA's response:

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.

The response raises a number of questions. How does carrying a large amount of cash impair the safety of air travel? Weapons I could see. But cash?

Also, merely carrying even large sums of cash is not enough in itself for someone to be legally detained. There needs to be some other sign of illegal activity. What else about Bierfeldt made the TSA agents suspect him of criminal activity? What is the maximum amount of cash you can carry in an airport without being expected to explain to TSA agents why you're carrying it?

Will the public be told what disciplinary action is taken against the agents who acted inappropriately? Will Bierfeldt?

From a policy standpoint, it also seems like a bad idea for the agency charged with ensuring the safety of airline passengers to distract itself by policing for crimes unrelated to airline safety, too. Of course, in this case, the only "crime" was an airline passenger carrying a large amount of cash, and asking the screeners to tell him what law compells him to answer their questions.

Comments

Alabama Getaway|4.6.09 @ 2:05PM|#

"The response raises a number of questions. How does carrying a large amount of cash impair the safety of air travel? Weapons I could see. But cash?"

It can be used to bribe the pilot to slam the plane into a skyscraper.

|4.6.09 @ 2:07PM|#

this response screams "We don't give a fuck and aren't going to do anything"

|4.6.09 @ 2:10PM|#

What if I'm carrying a credit card with a high limit? Can I be taken down to the station for that?

Abdul|4.6.09 @ 2:12PM|#

Also, merely carrying even large sums of cash is not enough in itself for someone to be legally detained. There needs to be some other sign of illegal activity.

I'm not sure that's 100% correct. Check out this quote from U.S. v. Chhien 266 F.3d 1, 8 -9 (C.A.1 (N.H.), 2001):

The appellant resists this conclusion, insisting that the mere possession of a large, unexplained amount of cash, without more, cannot be the basis for heightened suspicion. As authority for this proposition, he cites Sokolow, in which the Supreme Court indicated that paying for an airline ticket with $2,100 in cash might be consistent with innocent travel. 490 U.S. at 9, 109 S.Ct. 1581. Contrary to the appellant's importunings, this statement does not mean that the possession of a large, unexplained sum of cash can never support reasonable suspicion.FN6 The circumstances matter, as does the degree of intrusiveness of the continued detention. See Lopez Lopez v. Aran, 844 F.2d 898, 905 (1st Cir.1988) (explaining that the degree of intrusiveness of a stop must be proportional to the degree of suspicion that prompted the intrusion); United States v. Berryman, 717 F.2d 651, 657 (1st Cir.1983) (similar). In the circumstances of this case, we rule that the discovery of the cash justified a brief period of additional questioning. Cf. Conrod v. Davis, 120 F.3d 92, 97 (8th Cir.1997) (holding that discovery of $6,000 cash in a suspect's pocket and $4,000 in his suitcase furnished reasonable suspicion).


FN6. Indeed, in Sokolow itself the Court held that the cash purchase, together with other indicia, supported a reasonable suspicion sufficient to justify an investigative stop. 490 U.S. at 11, 109 S.Ct. 1581.

Please note that I am not saying this is a good policy. The use of large amounts of cash to determine reasonable suspicion for futher investigation stems largely from drug-war inspired precedent. However, Steve Bierfeldt's stop appears to be constitutional.

I also think you have to give TSA some credit for responding quickly and even criticizing the TSA officers for the browbeating that they administered. While it took a week, that's lightning fast in bureaucracy time.

Warty|4.6.09 @ 2:13PM|#

From that blog's heading:

TERRORISTS EVOLVE. THREATS EVOLVE. SECURITY MUST STAY AHEAD. YOU PLAY A PART.

*makes jerk-off motion*

|4.6.09 @ 2:13PM|#

Pro Libertate,

Why do you need such a high credit limit? What were planning to buy that requires that much credit?

If it was a debit card, they'd shoot you right there.

Other Matt|4.6.09 @ 2:14PM|#

What if I'm carrying a credit card with a high limit? Can I be taken down to the station for that?

No, because they can track that and make sure your spending is only for approved things. It's all about being able to keep track of you, but if you haven't done anything wrong you don't have anything to worry about.

You haven't done anything wrong, have you?

JB|4.6.09 @ 2:20PM|#

Why you carrying that much money?

"Well, I was planning on buying naked pictures of your wives. Then I realized those would only cost me a $1, but I still decided to bring the dough with me."

IB|4.6.09 @ 2:26PM|#

I'm actually surprised that the government is not arresting Bierfeldt for recording the conversation.

sfb|4.6.09 @ 2:30PM|#

I'm actually surprised that the government is not arresting Bierfeldt for recording the conversation.

Read the comments on the TSO blog. Missouri is a one-party state -- recording is legal as long as the recording is done by one of the primary participants in the dialog.

JB|4.6.09 @ 2:33PM|#

sfb, I think IB's point is more general: the government doesn't need a reason to be SOBs and detain or arrest you.

Though it would give him something else to sue over.

|4.6.09 @ 2:33PM|#

What if I'm carrying a credit card with a high limit? Can I be taken down to the station for that?

Just last night on TV news a gov't official was bemoaning that regulations have not caught up with a rise in use of cash cards, which apparently can carry cash and be redeemed pretty much anywhere, but it looks just like a credit card. How are they going to seize it if it isn't in obvious, big bundles?

Must be hard to live life seeing nothing but problems where others see small conveniences.

sfb|4.6.09 @ 2:37PM|#

sfb, I think IB's point is more general: the government doesn't need a reason to be SOBs and detain or arrest you.

Right, except the government didn't know about it until after Fox made the traveller a media darling ;-)

Although, there are plenty of dumb people in positions of authority within the government.

Lester Hunt|4.6.09 @ 2:39PM|#

Well, I have to admit that I'm impressed that this gov't agency has a blog and invites the public to comment on their actions. Got to give them some credit for that.

Beaker|4.6.09 @ 2:40PM|#

I'd like to know what the limit is. $4500? $100? And I'd really like to know the answer to his question as to whether or not he is legally bound to answer.

|4.6.09 @ 2:42PM|#

"A passenger who refuses to answer questions may be referred to appropriate authorities for further inquiry."

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but from what I heard of the tape, I don't remember hearing Bierfeldt refuse to answer the question. I do remember hearing him ask repeatedly whether he was required to answer.

Big Difference.

Fist of Etiquette|4.6.09 @ 2:45PM|#

As a general rule, passengers are required to cooperate with the screening process.

The dude kept asking what law required him to answer those questions, well there you have it. Figures a Paul supporter wouldn't recognize that well-documented legal statute known as "a general rule."

No Name Guy|4.6.09 @ 2:48PM|#

(snark)
He's lucky he wasn't a black guy driving throught that hick texas town that has a habit of funding itself by shaking down folks.
(end snark)

All in all, a pretty lame excuse of a response for the TSA. They weren't smiling while they were slapping his liberty around is basically what it was.

--|4.6.09 @ 2:51PM|#

You are correct Ken Schultz. He didn't refuse to answer the questions. He just wanted his question answered first, which was 'I'm I required to answer that question.' In the twisted world of law enforcement this was deemed refusing to answer and "double talk." Oh the irony of invocking when refusing to answer a simple yes/no question.

Oat Willie|4.6.09 @ 2:52PM|#

"How does carrying a large amount of cash small amount of cannabis impair the safety of air travel? Weapons I could see. But cash cannabis?"

There fixed it for you.

Now it's zero tolerance for all 'large' amounts of cash, how much or little matters only to the jackboots and their minions and it's not for us proles to worry about.

//completely stopped flying commercial when I could no longer carry my Swiss Army Knife

--|4.6.09 @ 2:53PM|#

Small point of conntention. Mr. Bierfeldt wasn't asking what law required him to answer but if there was a law that required him to answer. It was a very simple yes/no question.

|4.6.09 @ 2:54PM|#

This whole situation is absurd and unconstitutional. My mom worked for TSA and she would have never ever done anything like this, but I can tell you that bureaucracy is corrupt as can be. They are a joke, but maybe that's why they try to act all hardass.

That's ok. The longer the government keeps acting this way, the more people will wake up.

Jerry|4.6.09 @ 2:58PM|#

Isn't there some money laundering law that stipulates you can only have so much cash dough on you at all times?

SpongePaul|4.6.09 @ 3:00PM|#

Just last night on TV news a gov't official was bemoaning that regulations have not caught up with a rise in use of cash cards, which apparently can carry cash and be redeemed pretty much anywhere,
____________________________________________
True. after the e-gold fiasco, thank you bush. providers went to cash card. you fund it and mail it off, and then they mail you back your "meds" when you wanted more, you funded it by $$$ and then shot them an e-mail requesting your meds and that card was funded for $$$$. they would cash it in again and mail again, rinse repeat.

|4.6.09 @ 3:08PM|#

There's a reason why the posters on the "Travel Safety and Security" forum on Flyertalk refer to the TSA's blog as "Propaganda Village"

As one of the Anonymous posters on that TSA Blog post, and as a regular at the TSA's blog, the reaction isn't a surprise. It's what happens every day over there. What's especially sad is the constant misstatement of the laws by two of the TSOs posting comments on that blog (TSORon and kellymae81)

That said, I think one good thing comes of this - it finally makes the people who thought there'd be a change in the way the TSA acted after the Obama administration began realize that they couldn't have been more incorrect.

|4.6.09 @ 3:17PM|#

Isn't there some money laundering law that stipulates you can only have so much cash dough on you at all times?

Jerry,

If what I was reading in the TSA blog was correct, there is no law restricting how much [b]UNDOCUMENTED[/b] money you can carry with you domestically. Internationally, if you carry more than 10,000 cash on you, you must document it in customs or risk having it confiscated. However, none of this is (or should be) the purview of the TSA. The government is using the TSA as a government checkpoint under the guise of airline safety check and with that imbuing imunity powers on those that run it, with vague rules of engagement. The only thing you can do is hope the scanner and his/her supervisor aren't having a bad day and you haven't gone a few days without rest, because then you become their favorite toy to vent their frustration on.

|4.6.09 @ 3:48PM|#

What if I'm carrying a credit card with a high limit? Can I be taken down to the station for that?

When drug dealers begin to accept credit cards, yes.

|4.6.09 @ 4:09PM|#

it finally makes the people who thought there'd be a change in the way the TSA acted after the Obama administration began realize that they couldn't have been more incorrect.

Anybody who was that stupid won't change their mind just because of this incident. Or a hundred more just like it.

Mr. Rogers|4.6.09 @ 4:18PM|#

"How does carrying a large amount of cash small amount of cannabis impair the safety of air travel? Weapons I could see. But cash cannabis?"

Hmm, let's seee... Cannabis is illegal. Cash is not. See the difference?

Medic|4.6.09 @ 4:23PM|#

...Whats is your wallet?

Guess I wouldn't be able to leave with out being annoyed by the TSA. I never leave home without cash.

|4.6.09 @ 4:31PM|#

Nick | April 6, 2009, 3:48pm | #
What if I'm carrying a credit card with a high limit? Can I be taken down to the station for that?

When drug dealers begin to accept credit cards, yes.

Why don't they just do what the illegal brothels do? Just make up some sort of legal front for the business. The difference is that one is a service and the other a good, so the services can't have any exports to justify. Didn't the (illegal) emperor's club events get charged to credit accounts?

Joe Cascio|4.6.09 @ 5:00PM|#

Kind of consistent with the view of police now that people who know their rights are suspected of being terrorists.

|4.6.09 @ 6:17PM|#

Also, merely carrying even large sums of cash is not enough in itself for someone to be legally detained.... What is the maximum amount of cash you can carry in an airport without being expected to explain to TSA agents why you're carrying it?

Try withdrawing more than $10,000 from your financial institution. They'll require you to fill out a Currency Transaction Report (CTR) that goes to the feds to make sure you're not laundering money.

Try to get around the CTR by withdrawing $6,000 at one branch and $4,000 at another, and it will automatically prompt a Suspicious Transaction Report to go along with your CTR.

You see, it's not your money.

|4.6.09 @ 6:27PM|#

MrWhipple,

Yeah, that's "structuring", right? But TSA agents aren't financial institutions, even for BSA purposes, unless things have changed since my banking days.

cryptical|4.6.09 @ 6:32PM|#

Better than that, a teller can report a suspicious transaction for amounts as little as $3000, so there's no need to come close to the $10,000. This doesn't need to be disclosed to the customer.

skeelow|4.6.09 @ 6:54PM|#

It's actually against the law for you to even tell the customer that you're filing a SAR (suspicious activity report) on them.

|4.6.09 @ 7:20PM|#

Would this have happened back in the heady days when the security checkpoints were run by private interests?

Hard to say. The 4th Amendment doesn't apply to private screeners, but also a private screener has little motivation to enforce such laws.

Eliot Spitzer|4.6.09 @ 7:23PM|#

Yeah, that's "structuring", right?

Unless you're connected, like me.

|4.6.09 @ 8:29PM|#

No matter what you think... It was the principle of not being abused by government thugs. What if it was a load of bibles to the christian. A bunch of whatever, that is harmless... They obviously knew they were wrong and let him go...

If you don't stand up for liberty now, it may be to late one day. We need to reverse these silly mentalities that have absolutely nothing to do with safety... TSA is a joke and the entire airport scene is a joke.

If the gov hadn't allowed it, those plans would have never reached the towers in the first place. A bogie for 45 min and they couldn't stop it. Good thing they caught this $4,700... I'm not rich and I don't think $4,700 is anything to bat an eye at... The whole thing is a good sign of where we are headed...

|4.6.09 @ 10:39PM|#

This individual brought this upon himself when he refused to answer any of their questions. Cash buys bombs, guns, finances terrorism and can overthrow governments.

Jeff P|4.7.09 @ 12:07AM|#

The official statement by this gov't agency states that "as a general rule" cooperation is "required."
Nice loose use of language, there.

Bronwyn|4.7.09 @ 7:58AM|#

Jim... are you... ?

No. No. I won't feed the troll.

|4.7.09 @ 8:53AM|#

You talk of Liberty, freedoms of the press and yet "you" failed to print my entire comment. Mr Steve brought this upon himself deliberatly. It's very frustrating, dealing with smartass ignorant people.

|4.7.09 @ 9:30AM|#

Spitz!

|4.7.09 @ 12:43PM|#

Jim, they didn't fail to print your whole comment. You just suck at HTML.

|4.7.09 @ 1:26PM|#

Teeheehee, Jim thinks Reason approves/edits comments.

Try again Jim, but be warned, the server squirrels are unforgiving.

|4.7.09 @ 1:44PM|#

Can you transport gold coins on domestic flights? Have people tried this?

|4.7.09 @ 3:41PM|#

These federal clowns should never have been given metal badges by the last BUSH secretary of DHS. BIG mistake: Fuels the cop mentality.

Bronwyn|4.7.09 @ 3:45PM|#

Oh, boy! Jim, buddy, you owe a new monitor and keyboard.

*wipes tears*

This is a *drink*, right?

Bronwyn|4.7.09 @ 3:46PM|#

See, I was laughing so hard I dropped the "me" in there... Ohhhhh ... *sigh*

|4.7.09 @ 3:59PM|#

Unless the TSA has offered another response since I read it, they only apologized for the agent's language and attitude. The exception proves the rule, which in this case is, it is okay to detain a person with no probable cause and ask questions that are none of the TSA's business, just so long as the agent is polite about it.

"Excuse me sir, but the general rule is that I must now deploy this taser."