I donÂ’t usually like it when events involving politicians and their staffers results in a change of rules by law enforcement. However, this is a rule change that is long overdue, and which tells the TSA that they have no legitimate grounds to quiz travelers about legal activities.

An angry aide to Rep. Ron Paul, an iPhone and $4,700 in cash have forced the Transportation Security Administration to quietly issue two new rules telling its airport screeners they can only conduct searches related to airplane safety.

* * *

The new rules, issued in September and October, tell officers "screening may not be conducted to detect evidence of crimes unrelated to transportation security" and that large amounts of cash don't qualify as suspicious for purposes of safety.

"We had been hearing of so many reports of TSA screeners engaging in wide-ranging fishing expeditions for illegal activities," said Ben Wizner, a staff lawyer for the ACLU, pointing to reports of officers scanning pill-bottle labels to see whether the passenger was the person who obtained the prescription as one example.

He said screeners get a narrow exception to the Fourth Amendment, which prohibits unreasonable searches, strictly to keep weapons and explosives off planes, not to help police enforce other laws.

Steve Bierfeldt, the Ron Paul aide in question, was transporting a metal strong box with cash as a part of his duties as head of a Paul-affiliated political group. No illegal activity was alleged, and the only basis for suspicion was that he was carrying the cash. Clearly nothing untoward was going on, but Bierfeldt was still detained and subjected to threats of arrest because he would not explain why he was engaging in the legal activity of carrying the cash.

Frankly, this is in keeping with the experience that I detailed a last spring when my wife and I traveled to visit her dying mother. My mother-in-law gave my wife some old coins, jewelry, and other keepsakes she had accumulated over the years during the visit. While passing through security, my wife and I were extensively quizzed as to why we were carrying the collector coins. In addition, the screener (who had already assaulted my wife in her wheelchair) demanded to know the diagnoses for which my wife had been prescribed certain medications by her neurologist. IÂ’m glad to see these petty goose-steppers reigned in by the government so as to ensure that they do not exceed their lawful mandate.

Posted by: Greg at 09:13 AM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 415 words, total size 3 kb.

No one favors abuse of the elderly. But when the clear purpose of a statute is twisted to provide special protection that would be unavailable for all, we have a serious constitutional issue.

PORTLAND, Ore. — A judge has ordered animal-rights activists to keep their distance from a 75-year-old furrier because state law protects the businessman from elder abuse by shouting profanities.

Horst Grimm, the owner of Nicholas Ungar Furs, won an order Wednesday requiring four anti-fur activists to stay at least 50 feet away from Grimm and 15 feet away from his downtown Portland store.

Attorneys in the case believe it was the first time state laws to protect the elderly have been used to limit free speech.

Clackamas County Circuit Judge Jeffrey S. Jones said both sides presented reasonable arguments. But he said the level of profanity that protesters directed at Grimm clearly violated state law.

The Oregon elder-abuse law prohibits using derogatory names, harassment, coercion, threats, cursing, or intimidation that threatens significant physical or emotional harm to elderly or disabled people.

But wait – aren’t such laws designed to protect the elderly from abuse related to their age and dependency? If so, then this law is clearly being misused here to stop social/political protest that is otherwise protected by the First Amendment – and in doing so does violence not only to the free speech provision of the Constitution, but to the very concept of equal protection of the law as well. After all, younger furriers would not be able to avail themselves of protection from similar abusive treatment by protesters out to destroy their businesses.

That is not to say that I side with the harassers. Surely there are other laws that could be applied here – laws against disorderly conduct, stalking, and harassment that are laws of general application. And if there are not, then it is the province of the Oregon legislature to pass such laws, not of the courts to create novel interpretations of existing statutes to solve a problem that those laws were not designed to address.

Posted by: Greg at 12:02 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 363 words, total size 2 kb.