(b) specifically allows TSA to refuse travel to anyone who they think is inimical to safety; since it does not provide any limits on the considerations that lead to such conclusion, those considerations can be any, including answers to any questions, or refusing to answer those questions. In the recent incident with the student Nick George who was arrested for studying Arabic language because that’s the language Bin Laden spoke, TSA claimed that he was detained because of behavioral analyst tip. This, as well as the Arabic language, is already good enough to refuse travel. Further, TSA can and probably will argue that all this also provides sufficient probable cause for arrest, since they suspect that the individual is about to commit a crime (basing on behavior etc.) Arguing whether these considerations and conclusions are reasonable won’t work either because they will say that their multi-million-dollar research tells them that their behavioral analysis is reliable indicator of the terrorist crime in progress, and they won’t divulge any further details because of security concerns.

In addition, looking at the numerous comments people leave about these stories where they say that there’s absolutely nothing wrong with arresting anybody suspicious (they are in clear majority), this idea apparently has very broad support. Specifically, Nick George has been asked by TSA what he thinks about 9/11, and he said that this is complicated issue; now look at the dozens of comments all saying that having him arrested for that answer alone was not only justified, but absolutely necessary.

My wife had her right index finger bandaged and supported by an aluminum support. She had been tended to at INOVA Hospital at Alexandria VA on the 25th of July. Her finger had been accidentally slit open with a razor blade while she was cleaning the vanity top of the master bedroom and had 6 stitches holding it together.

Without reason nor explanation she was submitted to search and inside the plastic see-through cubicles on the other side of the walk through scanner. The burly female TSA employee in a very rude manner ordered her around as you do a POW, She made her spin around like a top while she ran the wand all over her body inclusive in between her legs, actually slapping her parts as she slid it up and down in between her legs.

My wife cannot hold her arms straight up for she has splintered bone fragments in the 5th, 6th and 7th cervicals. She requested an interpreter in Spanish for she does not speak nor understand English fluently, but to no avail the TSA employee press on with her body scan, made her unbuttoned her pants and pull it forward where she could peek in and see her private parts. This went on for almost 25 minutes non stop. Then she called for a doctor, For what purpose or reason we dont know for no one took the time to explain to her what they where looking for or why. Apparently a supervisor approached the TSA abuser and ordered her to release her. This happened without a word of apology.

We want to bring this woman to justice. We are not rich, and do not have the money to put down the retainer that lawyers normally want to charge you up front. But, would want to talk to one who will listen to us and determine if we have a case and proceed with a lawsuit for the public humiliation and physical exacerbation of pain which my wife is enduring over her shoulder and right arm as a result of methodology and verbal abuse she was a victim of from the TSA employee.

Fact #1: there is a rule of visibility: anything law enforcement officer can see, can be used as evidence, even if this is irrelevant to the reason he stopped you. For example, if the officer makes a traffic stop and through the window of your car sees packet with drugs, he will arrest you. In this case, TSA during security screening have discovered large sum of cash (by their definition).

Fact #2:
—————————————-
http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/12/1296.asp

Eighth Circuit Appeals Court ruling says police may seize cash from motorists even in the absence of any evidence that a crime has been committed.

US Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit federal appeals court ruled yesterday that if a motorist is carrying large sums of money, it is automatically subject to confiscation. In the case entitled, “United States of America v. $124,700 in U.S. Currency,” the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit took that amount of cash away from Emiliano Gomez Gonzolez, a man with a “lack of significant criminal history” neither accused nor convicted of any crime.
…
Yesterday the Eighth Circuit summarily dismissed Gonzolez’s story. It overturned a lower court ruling that had found no evidence of drug activity, stating, “We respectfully disagree and reach a different conclusion… Possession of a large sum of cash is ’strong evidence’ of a connection to drug activity.”
—————————————-

Basing on this precedent, TSA’s discovery of the cash is strong evidence of a connection to drug activity. Yes, it has nothing to do with airline security, but because of the rule of visibility, this ’strong evidence’ they have found is more than sufficient reason for the arrest, interrogation, and ceasing the cash.

However unreasonable this “strong evidence” appears to 99.9% of people (I hope), it is indeed real law precedent upheld by high court, so it can’t be easily dismissed. TSA was acting 100% legally, and their intent to pass the case to DEA was 100% legally valid.