Jun 18th, 2009
Posted by Ateqah Khaki, National Security Project at 4:25pm	Technology and Liberty

ACLU Sues TSA for Unlawful Detention of Ron Paul's Campaign for Liberty Treasurer

Today, we filed a new lawsuit against the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) over unlawful TSA search and detention practices. The case was filed on behalf of a traveler who was illegally detained and harassed by TSA Agents at the airport for carrying approximately $4,700 in cash.

On March 29, 2009, the plaintiff in the case, Steven Bierfeldt was detained in a small room at Lambert-St. Louis International Airport and interrogated by TSA officials for nearly half an hour after he passed a metal box containing cash through a security checkpoint X-ray machine. He was carrying the cash in connection to his duties as Treasurer of Ron Paul's Campaign For Liberty. Steven's experience is part of a troubling pattern of the TSA transforming its valid but limited search authority into a license to invade people's constitutional right to privacy.

Steven was detained and questioned as he returned home from a Campaign for Liberty event transporting proceeds from the sale of tickets, t-shirts, stickers and campaign material. He repeatedly asked the agents to explain the scope of their authority to detain and interrogate him and received no explanation. Instead, the agents escalated the threatening tone of their questions and ultimately told him that he was being placed under arrest. Steven recorded audio of the entire incident with his iPhone, which you can listen to here.

[audio:http://stream.luxmedia501.com/?file=clients/aclu/bierfeldt.mp3&method=dl|titles=Bierfeldt]

In a press release we issued about the case today, Steven states:

I do not believe I should give up my constitutional rights each time I choose to travel by plane. I was doing nothing illegal or suspicious, yet I was treated like a potential criminal and harassed for no reason. Most Americans would be surprised to learn that TSA considers simply carrying cash to be a basis for detention and questioning. I hope the court makes clear that my detention by TSA agents was unconstitutional and stops TSA from engaging in these unlawful searches and arrests. I do not want another innocent American to have to endure what I went through.

ACLU attorney Ben Wizner who is counsel in the case, explains:

Airport searches are the most common encounters between Americans and law enforcement agents. That's why it is so important for TSA agents to do the job they were trained to do and not engage in fishing expeditions that do nothing to promote flight safety. It is, of course, very important to ensure the safety of flights and keep illegal weapons and explosives off planes. But allowing TSA screeners to conduct general purpose law enforcement searches violates the Constitution while diverting limited resources from TSA's core mission of protecting safety.

TSA officials have the authority to conduct safety-related searches for weapons and explosives. Since 9/11, TSA agents have been using heightened security measures as an excuse to exceed their search authority and engage in unlawful searches that violate the privacy rights of passengers. Our lawsuit charges that unconstitutional searches and detention by TSA agents have become the norm. For the sake of public safety and constitutional values, these unlawful searches should stop.

You can learn more about the case and hear the audio recording of Steven's detention and interrogation here.

Permalink |	Technology and Liberty

Tags: national security project

1. TexasBrian Says:
   Jun 18th, 2009 at 4:06pm

   Outrageous.

2. anon Says:
   Jun 19th, 2009 at 9:55am

   What happened to Steven Bierfeldt is shameful and an outrage.

   And it goes beyond way beyond the TSA... Similar abuses are taking place on a wide scale, but those in power are, to date, getting away with their intimidation tactics which include the following: kafkaesque surveillance and harassment, surreptitious home-entries, defamation, and probable warrantless surveillance within the homes of certain individuals. Vandalism and thefts of personal property are taking place, clearly violations of the law.

   The criminal and morally bankrupt practices of our secretive government agencies need to be revealed for exactly what they are.

   Let's connect all the dots -- the final picture isn't one that most are going to want to see.

3. karen Says:
   Jun 19th, 2009 at 11:40am

   I fly through the STL airport on a regular basis and the TSA people there are particularly difficult to work with -- they need to be checked.

4. Anon Says:
   Jun 19th, 2009 at 4:36pm

   Down with TSA intimidation. Give someone with low self-esteem a badge and uniform and they develop a God complex. How much government-counterfeited unbacked fiat currency one carries is no business of any gov't agency. Down with the TSA and UP with Ron Paul's Campaign For Liberty!

5. denton Says:
   Jun 21st, 2009 at 10:54am

   TSA doesn't just search for things that are dangerous to aircraft.

   During a bag check, I was chatting with the operator, and asked him how often they found explosives. He said that they found them once or twice a day.

   Then he went on to say that much more often than that, they found drugs.

   The mass spectrometer won't find things it is not programmed to find.

   Obviously, someone set it up to find all kinds of things not prohibited on aircraft.

6. Gavin Baker Says:
   Jun 22nd, 2009 at 12:00am

   It's like listening to the Keystone Kops shred the Constitution.

7. Roger Says:
   Jun 22nd, 2009 at 1:05pm

   I see no where that he declared that he was carrying a large sum of money nor that he had receipts to prove that he ligitimately was carrying it because he was a treasurer of an organization. People who complain are most likely looking to have TSA's ability to search so they can carry on illegal purposes on their own intent.

8. Tony Says:
   Jun 23rd, 2009 at 9:43am

   Guess what, Roger? We are allowed to carry money in this country without receipts or proving that we have a "legitimate" purpose for doing so.

   If you wish to surrender that right, please call the police now and report what is in you wallet and why.

9. Richard Mercer Says:
   Jun 23rd, 2009 at 4:59pm

   The ACLU should remember the first letter means "AMERICAN" and not the world civil liberties. The constitution and bill of rights was written and established under circumstances not envisioned in todays society and they were not written to exclude common sense which has to be adjusted to accomodate the changes in our America.

10. Maggie Says:
    Jun 24th, 2009 at 3:28pm

    Tony, I believe he was carrying a metal box. Common sense tells you that a metal box would be questioned. I would have thought that he would have had some kind of receipt. But that would have been to easy.

    I believe that Mr. Bierfeldt knew exactly what he was doing; that it was for political gain.

11. Vadim Says:
    Jun 27th, 2009 at 3:39pm

    Richard, since ACLU's mission is exactly to preserve the very liberties you want excluded "in our America", would you agree that ACLU has become un-AMERICAN? as well as George Bush, who said that we are hated for our freedoms? I'm afraid, the population of "your America" is quite limited.

    Maggie, the metal box indeed must be questioned in form of opening it and ensuring that there are no prohibited on-board items inside. Cash is not one of them, in any amounts, but even if it was, it then would have to be thrown away like any other prohibited item; not questioned about its origins.

    As for the political gain, even if Mr. Bierfeldt indeed have set up a trap for TSA showing that they can be counted on to act illegally, this trap is no different from the ones regularly set up by police when they leave unattended wallets, offer illegal services and such. Those who are caught, go to jail. Why would it be any different for TSA?

12. Jim Says:
    Jul 29th, 2009 at 10:34am

    Yet another reason for the Republicans to stop bashing the ACLU. They do some uncomfortable stuff, but that lesser discomfort - compared to totalitarianism's much greater ones - is the essence of a free society.

13. Mark Says:
    Jul 29th, 2009 at 10:36am

    Good grief, if you listen to the audio it's so obvious that Biefeldt staged this. And the officer deserves a lot of credit for not smacking the smart ass. How much taxpayer money did this jerk waste with his little stunt?

14. Jose Luis Says:
    Jul 29th, 2009 at 10:37am

    Sorry to say, but I'm a mexican national with a life time of experience of traveling to and from the US, on border crossings and airport control. I even have a lot of experience with British, French and other law enforcement.

    This is nothing new or surprising, although I would say that the Ron Paul guy wasn't helping. He DOES have to answer and I would guess he was doing it for political gain just to get a contreversy out of it.

    But, I've seen and heard of much worse abouse by border agents.

15. Anonymous Says:
    Jul 29th, 2009 at 10:46am

    Anon...how about making your slogan "Down with the TSA and UP with Ron Paul’s Campaign For Liberty and UP with the ACLU"?

16. Bill Johnson Says:
    Jul 29th, 2009 at 10:51am

    Roger, you are correct. Law enforcement officers have the right and the obligation to detain and interrogate people who are carrying sunms of cash.

    In Russia.

    In Syria.

    In Cuba.

    But not in the United States of America, you fascist.

17. Gerry Says:
    Jul 29th, 2009 at 11:11am

    As far as I know, if you are carrying more than $10,000 in cash over international borders, you have to declare it. This seems like a crazy case of overreach by the TSA personnel.

18. Patrick Henry Says:
    Jul 29th, 2009 at 11:53am

    Jose Luis, No he does NOT have to answer any questions. Are you familiar with the Fifth Amendment? How about Miranda? You know, 'you have the right to remain SILENT.'

19. Lisa Says:
    Jul 29th, 2009 at 4:06pm

    It is unbelievable to me that any American citizen finds this reasonable. Bierfeldt wasn't rude, he just didn't want to be treated like a suspect of wrongdoing because he's got some cash on him. Good grief. He is entirely within his rights to ask if he is legally required to disclose certain information. What kind of police state do people want to live in?

20. John D Says:
    Jul 29th, 2009 at 4:45pm

    Some people have brought up the issue of crossing borders. Carrying cash across borders would be an issue for Customs, not the TSA (although both are parts of Homeland Security).

    However, Mr. Bierfeldt was traveling from St. Louis to Reagan/National in D.C., a trip that would require a big detour to cross international borders and so there are no Customs officials to deal with.

    I am unaware of any law that limits the amount of cash people may carry about within the country (although I am aware that deposits of a certain size must be reported by banks).

    This is clearly the TSA rising about their usual petty jackbootery. I had hoped with the new administration that this particular bit of political theater would come to an end. Alas, the Theatre of Suspicion and Aggression is not closing out its run.

21. Phil Says:
    Jul 29th, 2009 at 4:53pm

    While I agree with the lawsuit against TSA, there is no mention of privacy in the Constitution.

22. Aaron Says:
    Jul 29th, 2009 at 6:06pm

    Jose Luis: he was not crossing a national border.

23. Matt G. Says:
    Jul 29th, 2009 at 6:13pm

    I must've missed the part where carrying a large amount of cash became a crime...

24. Ian Says:
    Jul 29th, 2009 at 6:51pm

    Mark,
    How does one stage being searched. He had the right to remain silent throughout this process. The TSA may be allowed to not allow people who refuse to answer questions but if they want to arrest him the have to charge him. Which is why they didn't want to admit they were going to force him to the DEA. If they did take him, he would have every right to remain silent. But I could be wrong and the law is complicated. Which is why it was a good idea to ask if he was required by law to answer. If he was then they could say yes. Protecting one's privacy, refusing to answer about your private business is one's prerogative evan if, no especially if you do that for political purposes. He didn't waste taxpayers dollars, the police did. They could have let him on his way because he posed no danger to the plane and the only worry was that he was involved with drugs. But the had no evidence of that, it was pure conjecture.

    Also he deserves no credit for not smacking the smart ass. Not smacking someone who poses no threat to you is very easily accomplished and should be expected. If you don't like America or the principles of freedom and privacy upon which it stands you are free to go to Myanmar where, I assure you the convenience of the police does come first.

25. Ian Says:
    Jul 29th, 2009 at 6:52pm

    I'm sorry the first sentence required a question mark. Please forgive the mistake.

26. Lee Says:
    Jul 29th, 2009 at 9:31pm

    IN reference to answer 8 and9:
    In Chilton
    County Alabama, a man was stopped on I65. It was found that he had $18,000.00 cash in his car. The law enforcement men claimed he was dealing in drugs, although there was no other evidence of drugs. He said he bought and sold antique autos, and most people wanted cash , not a check from a stranger. They conficated the money. He went to court and got it back, but he lost the time and was out a lot of money for attornys fees. which he lost The law should be changed. At the same time "If you don't like policemen, next time you are in trouble, call a hippie".

27. Frank D Says:
    Jul 29th, 2009 at 9:53pm

    TSA is way overboard and must be stopped. If their strip searches and illegal activities can not be controlled, the department must be eliminated PERIOD

28. Daniel Hayes Says:
    Jul 30th, 2009 at 4:29pm

    Phil Says: there is no mention of privacy in the Constitution.

    Read the 1st, 5th and 14th amendments again. Note: you'll have to understand *the meaning* of the text instead of 'reading by rote' (i.e., doing a simple word search).

    Fortunately for us, smart judges have established the right to privacy through precedence. Google "Griswold v Connecticut" for more.

29. mystified Says:
    Jul 30th, 2009 at 4:56pm

    That is insanity. Do the TSA personnel really not *know* whether or not he is required by law to answer the question? Because if they know, they should say. What is so hard about saying, "no, you are not required, but it is in your best interests to cooperate with us."?

30. Sam Says:
    Jul 30th, 2009 at 6:38pm

    I support the ACLU.

    I'm not sure this is a case they should be pursuing.

    If I'm traveling with a metal box full of money, and TSA asks me about it, I'll tell them what it is (if it's legal). Honestly - what was the big deal?

    The Ron Paul employee caused a lot of people to waste a lot of time.

    I guarantee I would feel much more violated standing in the x-ray scanner thing at BWI than being asked if a large sum of money was mine if I was carrying it in a metal box.

    (And I have had to step into the x-ray scanner - it's unsettling, to say the least).

Name

E-mail

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.

Homepage

• Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd>
• Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

More information about formatting options

CAPTCHA

This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

What code is in the image? *

Enter the characters shown in the image. Ignore spaces and be careful about upper and lower case.