TSA faces new limits on screening “unrelated to transportation security”

by Charlie Leocha on November 12, 2009

tsa-bag-inspection
TSA was forced to change their procedures for handling non-terrorist and non-airplane safety issues at their checkpoints. Last March, Steve Bierfeldt, a fundraiser for Rep. Ron Paul, was stopped while carrying $4,500 through airport security in a lock box. He refused to tell TSA why he had the money and where he got it prompting the TSA officers to become apoplectic.

Now, TSA has had to instruct its screeners that it is legal to carry money though security checkpoints. (Wasn’t it always?)

The ACLU sued TSA claiming that the agency is exceeding their rights by searching passengers for far more than simple airplane security. The ACLU noted that it has heard reports that the TSA screeners often were found to be on “fishing expeditions” for illegal activities.

Mr. Bierfeldt recorded audio of the confrontation on his iPhone, including threats, insults and repeated questions about where he obtained the money.

“Are you from this planet?” one officer told him, while another accused him of acting like a child for asking what part of the law forced him to answer their questions about the money.

“The TSA has stated that their policy is going to change, which is basically what we were after all along,” Mr. Bierfeldt told The Washington Times.

The Washington Times article noted, “TSA has been given some leeway when it comes to the Fourth Amendment that prohibits unreasonable searches, strictly to keep weapons and explosives off planes, not to help police enforce other laws.”

Just I mentioned in an earlier post

TSA is discovering illegal goods, weapons, stashed bottles of liquids, corkscrews, drugs, folk traveling on someone else’s ticket, false IDs and other contraband (but no terrorists yet) passing through security checkpoints.

Though the justification for these searches is terrorism, no terrorists seem to have been apprehended. It seems like a major invasion of personal privacy just to get on a plane.

One reader responding to a bulletin board thread noted: “We would not tolerate border checks on highways between states, and we do not find it legal to stop all patrons leaving a bar to see if they are drinking and driving… why is wholesale TSA screening tolerated if it does not fulfill its real purpose?”

The TSA has issued directives to its field force of screeners with clear limitations on their actions and searches when it comes to issues other than aircraft safety and terrorism. The new rules state, “screening may not be conducted to detect evidence of crimes unrelated to transportation security”

With this TSA action, the ACLU has dropped their suit.

But this doesn’t mean criminals heading through security can rest easy. In the performance of a regular screening, should a TSA officer come across evidence of illegal activity, such as a bag of illicit drugs, this new directive will not affect the situation.

Print Friendly

  • http://www.thesimpsons.com Homer Simpson

    Corkscrews are allowed in carry on’s as long as they do not have a knife for cutting foil.

  • John

    Charlie …
    1. You assume that they haven’t caught any terrorists. What is your source? I seem to remember where they have caught people (Padilla).

    2. If your assumption is correct, how isn’t that their actions aren’t causal (ie Terrorists, like the recent escapade in New York City were they guy drove from CO to NYC, are choosing to travel be means other than air because of the security)? I that case, their inspections are having the desired result and keeping terrorist off airplanes.

  • Hapgood

    So the TSA has yet again reacted to a threat by changing their rules. How can we have any confidence that the screeners at checkpoints will receive proper training on the new rules and implement them correctly and consistently, since they don’t seem capable of doing that for the rules they already have? And will screeners be any more accountable for compliance than they already are (not)?

    “The new rules state, ‘screening may not be conducted to detect evidence of crimes unrelated to transportation security.’” That sounds rather vague. What stops a screener from “interpreting” the rule to mean that any criminal activity must have some relation to transportation security? I’d say the TSA did its usual masterful job of protecting its blank check by reacting with a cosmetic change that’s sufficient to placate a whining liberal critic but allows them continue doing business exactly as before.

  • Karen C.

    Commenting on this — “It seems like a major invasion of personal privacy just to get on a plane.” It certainly does, leaving me slightly appalled that the recent “alleged” shooter at Ft. Hood, who was emailing an extremist imam, was dismissed as not serious, while we law-abiding citizens still get our partially used toothpaste confiscated (still bitter about that one) and need to take our jackets, belts and shoes off while getting on a plane. I’m sure there are some instances where terrorists’ activity has been stopped or thwarted thanks to the vigilance of our agencies, but I get the feeling they keep looking backwards at how terrorists have done things, not projecting how they might do something in the future.

  • http://www.ffocus.org Bruce InCharlotte

    The ACLU dropped the ball on this one. They had a clear violation of the TSA’s mission and the Constitution, yet they’ve settled for a “management directive” that is totally unenforceable.

    The TSA has actually stopped this guy. http://townhall.com/columnists/DavidRStokes/2009/07/12/the_county_and_the_school_of_hate

    And they’ve swung and missed. http://www.gadling.com/2009/10/07/tsa-misses-another-forgotten-loaded-gun/

  • Pingback: Tweets that mention TSA faces new limits on screening “unrelated to transportation security” -- Topsy.com

Previous post:

Next post: