Harrassed & Detained For Carrying Cash @ Airport

[Elizabeth]

Originally Posted by Ferd

I suspect they were thinking more in terms of drug dealer or drug buyer than terrorist.

however the point is well made, they had no right to detain him, they had no legal right to ask him a blessed question and I hope he sues the pants of these people.

I agree!

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Ferd

I suspect they were thinking more in terms of drug dealer or drug buyer than terrorist.

however the point is well made, they had no right to detain him, they had no legal right to ask him a blessed question and I hope he sues the pants of these people.

I am working and listening to the video so this question may have been covered and I missed it.

As far as suing them - Who provided the audio of the conversation? If the guy that is suing provided it without telling the TSA that he was recording them, then it's not admissible in a court of law as evidence.

[Ferd]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

I am working and listening to the video so this question may have been covered and I missed it.

As far as suing them - Who provided the audio of the conversation? If the guy that is suing provided it without telling the TSA that he was recording them, then it's not permissible in a court of law as evidence.

he recorded it himself without their knowelege. you may be right, it might not be admissable.


but regardless, they detained him for having cash. unless there is some law stating that is a reason to detain him, he should have a case for being detained illegally.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Ferd

he recorded it himself without their knowelege. you may be right, it might not be admissable.


but regardless, they detained him for having cash. unless there is some law stating that is a reason to detain him, he should have a case for being detained illegally.

Ooops, I meant admissible. Well, he won't get anywhere with the lawsuit not allowing the TSA to be privy to his actions beforehand.

[Ferd]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

Ooops, I meant admissible. Well, he won't get anywhere with the lawsuit not allowing the TSA to be privy to his actions beforehand.

PO, my point is, I dont think he needs that tape to prove he was detained illegally.

they detained him for having LEGAL AMERICAN TENDER.

Nothing concerning any of the susequint conversations would be required to prove he was detained.

Now if there is some legal protection that TSA has where they are instructed to detain someone for carrying cash, then they might be off the hook, but if there is, then that needs to go to the supreme court to over turn it.


wacky.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Ferd

PO, my point is, I dont think he needs that tape to prove he was detained illegally.

they detained him for having LEGAL AMERICAN TENDER.

Nothing concerning any of the susequint conversations would be required to prove he was detained.

Now if there is some legal protection that TSA has where they are instructed to detain someone for carrying cash, then they might be off the hook, but if there is, then that needs to go to the supreme court to over turn it.


wacky.

I think they will be off the hook.

[Ferd]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

I think they will be off the hook.

then we have a most messed up country.


someone who wants a name for themselves needs to get that before the supreme court.

[Elizabeth]

Originally Posted by Ferd

PO, my point is, I dont think he needs that tape to prove he was detained illegally.

they detained him for having LEGAL AMERICAN TENDER.

Nothing concerning any of the susequint conversations would be required to prove he was detained.

Now if there is some legal protection that TSA has where they are instructed to detain someone for carrying cash, then they might be off the hook, but if there is, then that needs to go to the supreme court to over turn it.


wacky.

That would be my thinking as well, he doesn't need the tape to have a case-

He was doing nothing illegal to be detained and questioned the way he was.

[coadie]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

I think they will be off the hook.

Yep. I must listen to details better than some of the above posts. The FBI guy said they couldn't have him miss flight over cash in possession. That answers another question about winning damages. He made the flight, what is the damage?

[bishoph]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

I am working and listening to the video so this question may have been covered and I missed it.

As far as suing them - Who provided the audio of the conversation? If the guy that is suing provided it without telling the TSA that he was recording them, then it's not admissible in a court of law as evidence.

Not necessarliy....it depends on the laws of the state it happened in. Some states only one party has to have knowledge of the recording. The following is an exerpt from The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press:

Thirty-eight states and the District of Columbia permit individuals to record conversations to which they are a party without informing the other parties that they are doing so. These laws are referred to as “one-party consent” statutes, and as long as you are a party to the conversation, it is legal for you to record it. (Nevada also has a one-party consent statute, but the state Supreme Court has interpreted it as an all-party rule.)

Twelve states require, under most circumstances, the consent of all parties to a conversation. Those jurisdictions are California, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania and Washington. Be aware that you will sometimes hear these referred to inaccurately as “two-party consent” laws. If there are more than two people involved in the conversation, all must consent to the taping.

Regardless of the state, it is almost always illegal to record a conversation to which you are not a party, do not have consent to tape, and could not naturally overhear.