'Dont touch my junk' rally @ Austin today

tonycondon said:
i'm glad i don't carry cash since apparently it is now illegal.
Click to expand...

Except it is legal to carry any amount of cash within the US without filing anything.

Except that TSA has deemed "cash" suspicious and routinely calls law enforcement if the find a "lot" of cash. That's going beyond their mandate and turning them into a dragnet.

In this case, I think it's more about making a big deal that the strip-search machine found something. Given the amount of money, it would be like finding a large paperback book. One could hope they'd find that regardless.

No threat to the aircraft.

There's another video on youtube this week where they made an elderly lady in a wheelchair remove her bra because that's where she carried her cash for safekeeping.
 
wsuffa said:
...
Except that TSA has deemed "cash" suspicious and routinely calls law enforcement if the find a "lot" of cash.

....
Click to expand...

Well...it's actually the judiciary that has accepted a lot of cash as being suspicious. There are all kinds of cases - arising exclusively out of the War on Drugs - in which carrying a large amount of cash amounts to reasonable suspicion or probable cause.

You can't really blame a TSA agent for acting exactly in accord with the 4th Amendment as it has been interpeted by the judicial system.
 
JeffDG said:
Except for the fact that they work in a 4th Amendment Free Bubble
Click to expand...

Only if you insist on: 1) getting on an airplane; and 2) getting in the security line. Even then, I don't think the 4th Amendment is *completely* abrogated.

Regardless, you can't blame a TSA agent for reporting what courts have repeatedly found to be evidence of something that is a crime, when that something is in plain view. What you do is blame the judge(s) who ratified (note: it's the police that came up with the idea, the judiciary just OK'd it) the concept of lots of cash being indicative of running drugs.
 
Obi Heed Kenobi said:
Only if you insist on: 1) getting on an airplane; and 2) getting in the security line. Even then, I don't think the 4th Amendment is *completely* abrogated.

Regardless, you can't blame a TSA agent for reporting what courts have repeatedly found to be evidence of something that is a crime, when that something is in plain view. What you do is blame the judge(s) who ratified (note: it's the police that came up with the idea, the judiciary just OK'd it) the concept of lots of cash being indicative of running drugs.
Click to expand...

And liberty dies, one exception (or allowance) at a time...

Not that I think it's very smart to walk around with loads of cash on your person, but I certainly don't begrudge someone the right to do so. I know ferry pilots who routinely carry $10K in cash, because that's the only thing that works in certain parts of the world -- even in 2011. Shall we detain them all?

Alas, for every lost freedom there's an apologist.
 
I continue to find it amusing that pilots otherwise identifying themselves as social conservatives continue to rail against this. It is conservative courts who continue to chip away at the Bill of Rights.
 
alaskaflyer said:
I continue to find it amusing that pilots otherwise identifying themselves as social conservatives continue to rail against this. It is conservative courts who continue to chip away at the Bill of Rights.
Click to expand...

let's not go SZ with this

or maybe we should
 
Jay Honeck said:
And liberty dies, one exception (or allowance) at a time...

Not that I think it's very smart to walk around with loads of cash on your person, but I certainly don't begrudge someone the right to do so. I know ferry pilots who routinely carry $10K in cash, because that's the only thing that works in certain parts of the world -- even in 2011. Shall we detain them all?
Click to expand...

Except that's not what's happening, and isn't even close to an accurate representation of any kind of risk that's even lurking past the horizon.

Alas, for every lost freedom there's an apologist.
Click to expand...

Not so much an apologist here, as someone who's actually bothering to bring knowledge and information to an otherwise uninformed discussion.
 
Obi Heed Kenobi said:
Well...it's actually the judiciary that has accepted a lot of cash as being suspicious. There are all kinds of cases - arising exclusively out of the War on Drugs - in which carrying a large amount of cash amounts to reasonable suspicion or probable cause.

You can't really blame a TSA agent for acting exactly in accord with the 4th Amendment as it has been interpeted by the judicial system.
Click to expand...

Ah, but it's not suspicious in connection with the act of flying, and actively seeking it out - as some have done - would appear to exceed the limits of administrative search exemption. I found it quite interesting that the TSA settled very quickly in the Bierfeldt case instead of letting it be decided by a judge.
 
wsuffa said:
Ah, but it's not suspicious in connection with the act of flying, and actively seeking it out - as some have done - would appear to exceed the limits of administrative search exemption. I found it quite interesting that the TSA settled very quickly in the Bierfeldt case instead of letting it be decided by a judge.
Click to expand...

How do you know it was the TSA that was interested in settling quickly?

There is absolutely nothing unconstitutional about Gov't Agency 1 reporting something that courts have repeatedly determined as suspicious but may not be of itself incriminating, which is found in the course of a lawful search, to Gov't Agency 2.
 
Obi Heed Kenobi said:
How do you know it was the TSA that was interested in settling quickly?

There is absolutely nothing unconstitutional about Gov't Agency 1 reporting something that courts have repeatedly determined as suspicious but may not be of itself incriminating, which is found in the course of a lawful search, to Gov't Agency 2.
Click to expand...

In your opinion, counselor.
 
Obi Heed Kenobi said:
How do you know it was the TSA that was interested in settling quickly?

There is absolutely nothing unconstitutional about Gov't Agency 1 reporting something that courts have repeatedly determined as suspicious but may not be of itself incriminating, which is found in the course of a lawful search, to Gov't Agency 2.
Click to expand...

But...can they detain you at the security checkpoint while they wait for Gov't Agency 2 to show up to investigate?
 
steingar said:
In your opinion, counselor.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, this one's pretty well-established.

As just one tangential example, consider the "fellow officer rule." That imputes the knowledge of Gov't Officer 1 to Gov't Officer 2. Under some interpretations, 1 isn't even required to tell 2 in order for 2 to be deemed to have 1's knowledge.

In other words, say Officer 1 sees me run a red light. Officer 2 is on the other side of town, but Officer 2 might be deemend to know that I ran that red light, even if he never speaks to Officer 1.
 
JeffDG said:
But...can they detain you at the security checkpoint while they wait for Gov't Agency 2 to show up to investigate?
Click to expand...

Depends on the situation. Generally, my answer right now would be "probably." Reasonable suspicion is a really low bar; getting on an airplane with a lot of cash probably meets it (I'm 99% sure there is appellate law saying exactly that).
 
Obi Heed Kenobi said:
Depends on the situation. Generally, my answer right now would be "probably." Reasonable suspicion is a really low bar; getting on an airplane with a lot of cash probably meets it (I'm 99% sure there is appellate law saying exactly that).
Click to expand...

It is sad that getting on an airplane with a lot of cash meets the criteria for reasonable suspicion.

I don't believe there is anything reasonable about it, but I probably don't understand the definition of "reasonable."
 
Bob Noel said:
It is sad that getting on an airplane with a lot of cash meets the criteria for reasonable suspicion.

I don't believe there is anything reasonable about it, but I probably don't understand the definition of "reasonable."
Click to expand...

"Reasonable suspicion" is basically defined as "specific facts indicating the possibility of criminal activity."

It's a really low bar. Just to use an example that's not aviation: standing in front of a TV store late at night is reasonable suspicion.

Keep in mind that RS only justifies an investigatory stop (i.e., the officer can keep you from leaving while he asks you questions). To go beyond that, you have to have probable cause. While it's elevated from RS, PC is still a low standard.

If you want, I'll dig up a definition of RS and PC from some appellate cases and cut and paste it here.
 
OkieFlyer said:
Simple solution:
Just make the Dallas Cowboy cheerleaders TSA agents at DFW, and the guys not voluntarily waiting in line for their pat down are probably the terrorists.
Click to expand...

I haven't read this thread to the end, but if no one else has said so, this is BRILLIANT! Expand it to every NFL town (well, except Chicago, which got rid of the Honey Bears and their Super Bowl chances all in one fell swoop) and you willl have reinstated trust in the transportation industry.
 
Obi Heed Kenobi said:
"Reasonable suspicion" is basically defined as "specific facts indicating the possibility of criminal activity."

It's a really low bar. Just to use an example that's not aviation: standing in front of a TV store late at night is reasonable suspicion.

Keep in mind that RS only justifies an investigatory stop (i.e., the officer can keep you from leaving while he asks you questions). To go beyond that, you have to have probable cause. While it's elevated from RS, PC is still a low standard.

If you want, I'll dig up a definition of RS and PC from some appellate cases and cut and paste it here.
Click to expand...


I'm sorry I wasn't clear. I was trying to use the actual definition of the word "reasonable" rather than how it is apparently been bastardized by the legal system.
 
Bob Noel said:
I'm sorry I wasn't clear. I was trying to use the actual definition of the word "reasonable" rather than how it is apparently been bastardized by the legal system.
Click to expand...

One man's reasonable is another man's travesty. That's why we have judges.
 
Yeah, at first glance it appears that things are evolving to where a police officer can stop and detain you just because they don't like the looks of you. Not exactly what this country was set up for.
 
steingar said:
Yeah, at first glance it appears that things are evolving to where a police officer can stop and detain you just because they don't like the looks of you. Not exactly what this country was set up for.
Click to expand...

:rofl:

What do you think it was like prior to, say, WW2? If anything we are devolving (is that a word?)

All of the judicial actions, or legislation for that matter, expanding Bill of Rights protections to what we are used to today (or were used to in the period immediately proceeding 9/11 anyway) likely took place in your lifetime or at the very least that of your parents'.

Constitutional originalists should be very happy with where we are and where we are going.
 
Last edited:
alaskaflyer said:
Yep. Just like a politician voting for a new law, or a pilot opining on a web forum somewhere.
Click to expand...

Which means that judge could declare it's not a travesty (even though 99.9% of us may agree it is) and now precedence is set. Ugh.
 
EdFred said:
Which means that judge could declare it's not a travesty (even though 99.9% of us may agree it is) and now precedence is set. Ugh.
Click to expand...

In which case there are two checks on judges: 1) a legislature may pass a law in essence overturning the judge's decision (or, in the case of a constitutional issue, an amendment may be ratified); or 2) the governor may commute a sentence or pardon the crime.

Note that both of those options are available to representatives selected by the voters.

So, it's not like a judge is the final say on something. All power ultimately stems from The People. Yet, what action do we see by the people from The People on the things they complain about (often rightly), other than complaining about them?
 
EdFred said:
Because judges believe cops without question. My dad was in front of a judge who flat out stated "Cops are never wrong."
Click to expand...

This is another one of those blanket statements that everyone believes.

A cop showing up in traffic court who says "I measured the defendant doing 70 in a 55 by radar, which had been calibrated that morning, here is the certificate for it, whom I also paced doing 70 in a 55 after using my radar gun, and here is the monthly calibration report for the car's speedometer," is simply going to be more credible than the driver who says "nuh-uh, and he was mean to me too."

In probable cause hearings for more serious crimes, the defendant usually won't testify, and usually won't present any evidence. Meaning that the judge is left to go on the officer's word alone - and, considering it's a more serious crime, there will usually be corroborative evidence as well (say, a 911 call from a 3rd party saying something like "there's this blue Ford late-model pickup truck swerving all over the road, looks drunk to me").
 
Obi Heed Kenobi said:
This is another one of those blanket statements that everyone believes.

A cop showing up in traffic court who says "I measured the defendant doing 70 in a 55 by radar, which had been calibrated that morning, here is the certificate for it, whom I also paced doing 70 in a 55 after using my radar gun, and here is the monthly calibration report for the car's speedometer," is simply going to be more credible than the driver who says "nuh-uh, and he was mean to me too."

In probable cause hearings for more serious crimes, the defendant usually won't testify, and usually won't present any evidence. Meaning that the judge is left to go on the officer's word alone - and, considering it's a more serious crime, there will usually be corroborative evidence as well (say, a 911 call from a 3rd party saying something like "there's this blue Ford late-model pickup truck swerving all over the road, looks drunk to me").
Click to expand...

Actually it was 7 pieces of wrong information on the ticket including

The wrong date.
The wrong road.
The wrong vehicle.
The wrong SEX.

But cops are never wrong according to the judge.


I had the same issue with video evidence showing the cop was wrong, and the magistrate still sided with the officer, stating "If I rule in favor of you, I have to rule in favor of others too, and we can't have that."
 
Last edited:
EdFred said:
Actually it was 7 pieces of wrong information on the ticket including

The wrong date.
The wrong road.
The wrong vehicle.
The wrong SEX.

But cops are never wrong according to the judge.
Click to expand...

None of that has anything to do with whether your dad was guilty or innocent. Does it reflect on credibility? Not really, partially because none of that has anything to do with speeding or any other traffic offense, and esp. depending on what the cop said in court.
 
EdFred said:
...
I had the same issue with video evidence showing the cop was wrong, and the magistrate still sided with the officer, stating "If I rule in favor of you, I have to rule in favor of others too, and we can't have that."
Click to expand...

What was the evidence?

Did you appeal? Did you get a copy of the transcript and send copies to the judiciary, to the legislature, to the governor, and to the media? If you didn't, then you're just complaining and doing nothing - and that assumes it happened as you say it did.
 
Obi Heed Kenobi said:
None of that has anything to do with whether your dad was guilty or innocent. Does it reflect on credibility? Not really, partially because none of that has anything to do with speeding or any other traffic offense, and esp. depending on what the cop said in court.
Click to expand...

Never said it did. Nevertheless the judge did state "Cops are never wrong," even going against the evidence that shows otherwise. So, if judges are going to turn a blind eye for that, why wouldn't they just believe anything else a cop says?
 
EdFred said:
Never said it did. Nevertheless the judge did state "Cops are never wrong," even going against the evidence that shows otherwise. So, if judges are going to turn a blind eye for that, why wouldn't they just believe anything else a cop says?
Click to expand...

Again, assuming this happened as your dad told you it did, did you complain to the judiciary? A statement like that would be grounds to remove someone from the bench. Period - that would have someone removed as a judge. At the minimum, that judge would never get to sit on any case involving a police officer again.

It's funny, but I've been in a whole bunch of different courtrooms, in a whole bunch of different counties and states, since I was fairly young (5-6), and I've never heard anything of the sort. The worst I've heard tell of is a judge refusing to follow a Supreme Court ruling on desegregation in the 1960's, which was reversed before you could snap your fingers, with sanctions against the judge following. Maybe where you are is just riddled with corruption, though?
 
Last edited:
Obi Heed Kenobi said:
What was the evidence?

Did you appeal? Did you get a copy of the transcript and send copies to the judiciary, to the legislature, to the governor, and to the media? If you didn't, then you're just complaining and doing nothing - and that assumes it happened as you say it did.
Click to expand...

No transcript as it was in front of a magistrate with just him, I, and the officer. I did contact the media who did nothing about it, and I "won" on appeal. I say "won" because the APA said they would drop the charge if I plead to defective equipment and stated that I had it fixed - but I would still have to pay court costs.
 
alaskaflyer said:
:rofl:

What do you think it was like prior to, say, WW2? If anything we are devolving (is that a word?)
Click to expand...

Says you. Yeah, in the last epoch, cops abused their power. Difference is, back then, if you had the means, you could sue. Suppress evidence, collect damages, all that. Now, you have no recourse. None. That is a big honking difference. And we've no one to blame but ourselves. And the real victims will be your children.

By the time we're done with them they'll wish they were on drugs.
 
Obi Heed Kenobi said:
Again, assuming this happened as your dad told you it did, did you complain to the judiciary? A statement like that would be grounds to remove someone from the bench. Period - that would have someone removed as a judge. At the minimum, that judge would never get to sit on any case involving a police officer again.
Click to expand...

He attempted to take it further, but was stonewalled. I forget the details of why he didn't. I dug into it further, and the whole situation was jacked up.
 
Obi Heed Kenobi said:
It's funny, but I've been in a whole bunch of different courtrooms, in a whole bunch of different counties and states, since I was fairly young (5-6), and I've never heard anything of the sort. The worst I've heard tell of is a judge refusing to follow a Supreme Court ruling on desegregation in the 1960's, which was reversed before you could snap your fingers, with sanctions against the judge following. Maybe where you are is just riddled with corruption, though?
Click to expand...

Probably didn't help that the entire courthouse was under construction and they were looking for every bit of revenue they could get.
 
EdFred said:
No transcript as it was in front of a magistrate with just him, I, and the officer. I did contact the media who did nothing about it, and I "won" on appeal. I say "won" because the APA said they would drop the charge if I plead to defective equipment and stated that I had it fixed - but I would still have to pay court costs.
Click to expand...

There is always a transcript and record. That's a constitutional requirement, it's a matter of due process. If there wasn't at least a tape recorder, again, that's something that should be taken to the state judiciary - that's a big deal, and would be taken care of *very* quickly.

So what was this evidence that you had proving the police was/were (not sure which is appropriate there) wrong, but which didn't prevent you from deciding to plead guilty?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top