Practical Travel Safety Issues - Strip Seach Question

I recently flew to Mexico and on entering security at departure airport FAT was told my bags and clothes tested positive. I was asked to step aside and asked could they go through my handbag. I said yes and they pulled everything in the bag out, which contained only a wallet, Ipod, camera, pen, and car keys and said it all tested positive. I was then escorted into a room and had the strip search after which I was told to wait. I watched them and they ran some kind of rag over everything started up the camera and ran it over the lens, ditto the glass of the Ipod, pen etc. When I asked what it tested positive for I was told the next officer would talk to me. I got redressed, he came in asked where I was going and why, handed me back my bag and said everything was ok. I again asked what it tested positive for and he turned and walked out the door.

So what would make a handbag and clothes test positive? I am just on the sunny side of 70, not into drugs and have used this same small handbag for plane travel for years.

Strip searched, as in they actually made you take your clothes off? ...? I didn't think even the TSA did that - sounds like grounds for a lawsuit.

I recently flew to Mexico and on entering security at departure airport FAT was told my bags and clothes tested positive. I was asked to step aside and asked could they go through my handbag. I said yes and they pulled everything in the bag out, which contained only a wallet, Ipod, camera, pen, and car keys and said it all tested positive. I was then escorted into a room and had the strip search after which I was told to wait. I watched them and they ran some kind of rag over everything started up the camera and ran it over the lens, ditto the glass of the Ipod, pen etc. When I asked what it tested positive for I was told the next officer would talk to me. I got redressed, he came in asked where I was going and why, handed me back my bag and said everything was ok. I again asked what it tested positive for and he turned and walked out the door.

So what would make a handbag and clothes test positive? I am just on the sunny side of 70, not into drugs and have used this same small handbag for plane travel for years.
Excuse me ... are you saying you submitted to an ACTUAL strip search? :eek: Who was present, and how were you represented during that process?

Call a lawyer, contact ACLU and request tapes ASAP from the airport under FOIA. That is so not acceptable!

Please follow as the thread moves to the Travel Safety and Security forum. Ocn Vw 1K, Moderator, TravelBuzz.

I was then escorted into a room and had the strip search after which I was told to wait.

Could you describe in more detail what you mean by a strip search? What did they make you take off? Was this the TSA?

OP...I am sorry you had to go through this. It disturbs me deeply that you were coerced into removing your clothing...and clarification on that would be of interest to many here, as most of us would refuse to go into a private room with the TSA without a witness of our choosing.

It is also odd that you never got an explanation, or apparently, an apology for this treatment.

(Making sure this thread stays on the first page a while longer, so maybe someone could answer your questions, or provide any further info on who to report this to, because it should be reported.)

Had you taken/handled/packed any nitroglycerin for angina? That is one possibility. Glycerin lotions are another possibility.

I'm still trying to digest the part where you made to remove your clothing....

Fresno airport..

On American soil and they didn't tell you why, how and where?

This is mind-bogglingly unusual for FAT where the TSOs are normally among the most friendly and laid back of any I have experienced. FAT is my home airport and I pass through many times per year.

I too would love to know what the false positive was for.

This is mind-bogglingly unusual for FAT where the smurfs are normally among the most friendly and laid back of any I have experienced. FAT is my home airport and I pass through many times per year.

I too would love to know what the false positive was for.

Must have been enough of a reason for the TSA to proceed with due diligence..

and the secrecy is sometimes their policy in all fairness.. But OBL is dead now.. TSA could change the way they conduct security checks post terror era..

and the secrecy is sometimes their policy in all fairness.. But OBL is dead now.. TSA could change the way they conduct security checks post terror era..

Secret rules and intrusive searches are not something any reasonable person should tolerate in a so-called free society.

If you hold your breath waiting for the TSA to change for the better from within, you'll probably end up the same color as their uniforms.

Secret rules and intrusive searches are not something any reasonable person should tolerate in a so-called free society.

If you hold your breath waiting for the TSA to change for the better from within, you'll probably end up the same color as their uniforms.

I agree with you a 100% that it doesn't seem right..

The law isn't perfect.. so hopefully the Obama administration can affect some changes with TSA

The law isn't perfect.. so hopefully the Obama administration can affect some changes with TSA

The only acceptable change for the TSA is 100% de-funding. Disband it. It's a failed experiment, and has done nothing but waste time and money allowing untrained thugs to perform security theatre to show the sheeple how much their government "cares" about them.

The OP's post is prima facie evidence of this.

The only acceptable change for the TSA is 100% de-funding. Disband it. It's a failed experiment, and has done nothing but waste time and money allowing untrained thugs to perform security theatre to show the sheeple how much their government "cares" about them.

The OP's post is prima facie evidence of this.

That would be a wish come true.. They have the strip search machines standard for Canadians to be scanned when going through Customs now.. sort of like every Canadian passing through is stripped searched.. or can opt for a pat down..

A total invasion of privacy.. but our family wants to vacation in the US.. so yes.. 100% in agreement.. but don't see this happening anytime soon..

Must have been enough of a reason for the TSA to proceed with due diligence..

and the secrecy is sometimes their policy in all fairness.. But OBL is dead now.. TSA could change the way they conduct security checks post terror era..
Post what???? Are you kidding? This .... has just started ramping up, it's going to be worse in twelve months once whatever retaliation strike(s) for the kill are put into action. Not sure how they can get anymore invasive but I am unfortunately confident that TSA will find a way :mad:

There was no strip search, but I'm waiting for the OP to reply to the original question.

There was no strip search, but I'm waiting for the OP to reply to the original question.

You were there or just calling the OP a liar?

There was no strip search, but I'm waiting for the OP to reply to the original question.

Omnipotence?

Yes, we are all waiting, and you (we) can not know until it is answered. So I wait.

BTW, you are probably correct. I sincerely hope you are.

Not sure how they can get anymore invasive but I am unfortunately confident that TSA will find a way :mad:Anal or vaginal probe. It's the only way.

This thread is useless until the OP returns . . . :(

There was no strip search, but I'm waiting for the OP to reply to the original question.

Under relatively new Supreme Court precedent, a strip search doesn't necessarily mean getting totally naked, FYI. As I stated, I am waiting for the OP to return.

I recently flew to Mexico and on entering security at departure airport FAT was told my bags and clothes tested positive. I was asked to step aside and asked could they go through my handbag. I said yes and they pulled everything in the bag out, which contained only a wallet, Ipod, camera, pen, and car keys and said it all tested positive. I was then escorted into a room and had the strip search after which I was told to wait. I watched them and they ran some kind of rag over everything started up the camera and ran it over the lens, ditto the glass of the Ipod, pen etc. When I asked what it tested positive for I was told the next officer would talk to me. I got redressed, he came in asked where I was going and why, handed me back my bag and said everything was ok. I again asked what it tested positive for and he turned and walked out the door.

So what would make a handbag and clothes test positive? I am just on the sunny side of 70, not into drugs and have used this same small handbag for plane travel for years.


When someone says they 'got redressed' it generally means that at some point, they were UNDRESSED.

Omnipotence?

Yes, we are all waiting, and you (we) can not know until it is answered. So I wait.

BTW, you are probably correct. I sincerely hope you are.

Removing a jacket or sports coat doesn't count. The only time a person would not be required to remove a jacket or a sports coat is when it is the only outer wear garment, and that typically occurs with female passengers. But if they don't speak up, the TSO finds out the hard way; and I've had to deal with situations like that when a passenger deliberately stripped to either make a point or because they were closet exhibitionists.

Either way, the term "strip search" by the OP is rhetorical not literal. We'll just have to wait until the OP responds.

Removing a jacket or sports coat doesn't count. The only time a person would not be required to remove a jacket or a sports coat is when it is the only outer wear garment, and that typically occurs with female passengers. But if they don't speak up, the TSO finds out the hard way; and I've had to deal with situations like that when a passenger deliberately stripped to either make a point or because they were closet exhibitionists.

Either way, the term "strip search" by the OP is rhetorical not literal. We'll just have to wait until the OP responds.

Bolding mine. Bart, you don't know what the OP meant by "strip search" -- whether they used it rhetorically as you claim or accurately as other posters surmise. As you said, we'll have to wait until the OP responds to clarify.

For my ZWL 10 zillion, "strip search" means the forced removal of most or all clothing. The forced removal of a jacket or similar outer garment would not, to me, count as a strip search.

Even so, the OP was detained without being given a reason. I agree with the recommendation in post #3, notify a lawyer and the ACLU, and demand the tapes both under FOIA and legal discovery.

I've had to deal with situations like that when a passenger deliberately stripped to either make a point or because they were closet exhibitionists.

Wow. Maybe the point they were making is that TSA forced them to remove their clothing. After all, TSA screeners did tell them to remove their clothing. Back in the land of decent human behavior, we don't use threats and coercion to get innocent people to take their clothes off.

Bolding mine. Bart, you don't know what the OP meant by "strip search" -- whether they used it rhetorically as you claim or accurately as other posters surmise. As you said, we'll have to wait until the OP responds to clarify.

For my ZWL 10 zillion, "strip search" means the forced removal of most or all clothing. The forced removal of a jacket or similar outer garment would not, to me, count as a strip search.

Even so, the OP was detained without being given a reason. I agree with the recommendation in post #3, notify a lawyer and the ACLU, and demand the tapes both under FOIA and legal discovery.

Is there some FlyerTalk rule that says I need your permission before posting a comment?

I was placed in a room with one woman and another woman came in and asked me to remove my blouse - not bra and to lower my pants (jeans) to my knees, the one then went over me with the wand and then the other told me she was going to do a pat down which she did. They were professional about it, no complaint there stricky business like. When they were done they filled out some form they had on clip board, told me to redress then left and the guy came in, at which point I was already redressed.

I don't take any pills, and I just use simple soap and water when traveling because personally I hate some loaded down with smells. As I said I had little in my purse and as far as I know nothing has been in contact with anything unusual.

I was placed in a room with one woman and another woman came in and asked me to remove my blouse - not bra and to lower my pants (jeans) to my knees, the one then went over me with the wand and then the other told me she was going to do a pat down which she did. They were professional about it, no complaint there stricky business like. When they were done they filled out some form they had on clip board, told me to redress then left and the guy came in, at which point I was already redressed.

I don't take any pills, and I just use simple soap and water when traveling because personally I hate some loaded down with smells. As I said I had little in my purse and as far as I know nothing has been in contact with anything unusual.

Bart owes OP an apology.

I'm sorry this happened to you, nco4242.

I am also so sorry you went through this.

They were professional about it, no complaint there stricky business like.

Sure, if one's business is forcing a passenger to be half-naked in order board a plane.

Did you protest what you were being asked? If so, were you told that you would not be flying if you did not comply?

Sickening.

I was placed in a room with one woman and another woman came in and asked me to remove my blouse - not bra and to lower my pants (jeans) to my knees, the one then went over me with the wand and then the other told me she was going to do a pat down which she did. They were professional about it, no complaint there stricky business like. When they were done they filled out some form they had on clip board, told me to redress then left and the guy came in, at which point I was already redressed.

I don't take any pills, and I just use simple soap and water when traveling because personally I hate some loaded down with smells. As I said I had little in my purse and as far as I know nothing has been in contact with anything unusual.

And they never told you what they were looking for?

Why do a pat down if the person is only wearing a bra and panties?

And what if the person would not have worn any bra and/or panties?

What would then the result be?

Arrest for indicent exposure?

And why would a male come into a room when a woman has been ordered to stirip to her undies?

I thought male's were not allowed to be a part of a female search.
To me he was since he didnt know if she was dressed or not.

Unless they have hidden cameras in there.

this is disturbing on so many levels

Bart owes OP an apology.

I'm sorry this happened to you, nco4242.

+1

I was placed in a room with one woman and another woman came in and asked me to remove my blouse - not bra and to lower my pants (jeans) to my knees, the one then went over me with the wand and then the other told me she was going to do a pat down which she did. They were professional about it, no complaint there stricky business like. When they were done they filled out some form they had on clip board, told me to redress then left and the guy came in, at which point I was already redressed.

I don't take any pills, and I just use simple soap and water when traveling because personally I hate some loaded down with smells. As I said I had little in my purse and as far as I know nothing has been in contact with anything unusual.

Sue the .......s. They had absolutely no right to do that to you.

I was placed in a room with one woman and another woman came in and asked me to remove my blouse - not bra and to lower my pants (jeans) to my knees, the one then went over me with the wand and then the other told me she was going to do a pat down which she did. They were professional about it, no complaint there stricky business like. When they were done they filled out some form they had on clip board, told me to redress then left and the guy came in, at which point I was already redressed.

I don't take any pills, and I just use simple soap and water when traveling because personally I hate some loaded down with smells. As I said I had little in my purse and as far as I know nothing has been in contact with anything unusual.

Please please please don't let this go. It doesn't matter if it was "strictly business," it was wrong, un-American, and very likely meets the threshold for criminal assault/battery.

You need to talk to a lawyer, someone in high authority at that airport, the media, the ACLU, and possibly the police. TSA repeatedly denies that they do this to people they force into the private room, but what happened to you is why I believe nobody should ever let themselves be forced into the private room, even if it means not flying. Once the passenger us in that room, TSA is unchecked in their control.

Fresno Bee

Newsroom (559) 441-6330
metro@fresnobee.com
Fax: (559) 441-6436

Don't get me wrong: I am absolutely revolted by this and would not myself consent. However, I have to ask: What is the law about strip searches at airports if the TSA claims "reasonable suspicion" of some sort? Are they permitted? By the TSA, or must they call in an LEO? What are the rights of the passenger? Is there a threshhold of suspicion that must be met? What exactly are our rights?

Why do a pat down if the person is only wearing a bra and panties?

Good question...what was being touched when the pants were down and the blouse was off?

This is another reason to turn on your cell phone's a/v during screening. Mine has no trouble capturing audio from within my tote bag.

HO. LY. COW.

I would have been screaming so loud they would have heard me at BOS.

Can even "real cops" just demand that you start stripping with no apparent justification?

I'm looking for a clear statement from a TSA screener person as to whether this is now SOP for all ETD alarms, and also whether it applies to medical opt-outs.

Yes or no, TSA peeps??

Bart owes OP an apology.


Don't hold your breath.

From reading all this I guess the term I used strip search was wrong or not depending on who is responding. To my mind it is when they ask to remove clothing but perhaps I am incorrect. I was not asked to remove my bra or underwear.
I have no complaint with the way the ladies did it as I said it was professional. The man did not come back into the room until I was fully redressed and I have no complaints as to his treatment of me with the exception that he did not answer my question.
I am just really wondering what they think they found on me that gave them this positive test.
I never though people would get so worked up over this issue I though this was just some fluke and I happened to be the person involved.

Where are our friendly TSOs who were so sure this did not happen?

From reading all this I guess the term I used strip search was wrong or not depending on who is responding. To my mind it is when they ask to remove clothing but perhaps I am incorrect. I was not asked to remove my bra or underwear.
I have no complaint with the way the ladies did it as I said it was professional. The man did not come back into the room until I was fully redressed and I have no complaints as to his treatment of me with the exception that he did not answer my question.
I am just really wondering what they think they found on me that gave them this positive test.
I never though people would get so worked up over this issue I though this was just some fluke and I happened to be the person involved.

I realise that you are absolutely entitled to your own opinion, but I find it incredible that a woman has no issue with dropping her pants and removing her shirt, because someone in a role of authority told her to do so.

The fact that you are so nonchalant about most of this is indicative of why we here have not managed to be very successful yet in changing the mindset of many travellers.

May I ask how often you fly?

From reading all this I guess the term I used strip search was wrong or not depending on who is responding. To my mind it is when they ask to remove clothing but perhaps I am incorrect. I was not asked to remove my bra or underwear.

I don't think that most of us consider standing there stark naked as the definition of a strip search. Anything more than removing outerwear -- jacket, a sweatshirt -- fits the bill. Being forced to remove one's blouse and pants definitely counts as more than any of us thought that a TSO could demand.

Did you protest these demands when they were made? Were you told what would happen in the private room before you went along?

I concur with exbayern above: I'm not trying to pass judgement, but I think many of us would be astounded that you seemingly do not have an issue with the indignity you were forced to undergo.

From reading all this I guess the term I used strip search was wrong or not depending on who is responding. To my mind it is when they ask to remove clothing but perhaps I am incorrect. I was not asked to remove my bra or underwear.
I have no complaint with the way the ladies did it as I said it was professional. The man did not come back into the room until I was fully redressed and I have no complaints as to his treatment of me with the exception that he did not answer my question.
I am just really wondering what they think they found on me that gave them this positive test.
I never though people would get so worked up over this issue I though this was just some fluke and I happened to be the person involved.

Why would you even need a pat wown if you are down to your bra and panties?
That makes no sence at all.
That is wrong. I would be very insulted and feel like I am being sexual molested.Cause they would patdown my bra and undies.And that is perverted.

Then to me it is safer to be totally naked and not being touched at all.
And to that point I hope I never get.

From reading all this I guess the term I used strip search was wrong or not depending on who is responding. To my mind it is when they ask to remove clothing but perhaps I am incorrect. I was not asked to remove my bra or underwear.
I have no complaint with the way the ladies did it as I said it was professional. The man did not come back into the room until I was fully redressed and I have no complaints as to his treatment of me with the exception that he did not answer my question.
I am just really wondering what they think they found on me that gave them this positive test.
I never though people would get so worked up over this issue I though this was just some fluke and I happened to be the person involved.


No, no, no. :(

I'm glad that you felt everyone was professional and were not traumatized by this, but the bottom line is that your privacy was severely violated, and it appears that the TSA was far, far outside the bounds of their authority.

Several people on this board have reported positive swab tests, and even "resolution patdowns" which were required to take place in private rooms. Aside from a few early reports of women with skirts being forced to remove them, no one has reported being asked to remove clothing. Even the TSA peeps on this board have indicated that absent a clear and present danger, passengers are not asked to remove clothing, and in fact, are not allowed to do so. Further, one would think* that were a TSA person convinced that a passenger needed to remove clothing to be "cleared", that TSA person would wish to have an actual police office present - you know, for their own protection.

If you can find the energy and motivation, I (and everyone else here) would strongly encourage you to pursue all avenues of reporting this abhorrent situation. Start with the official channels (airport-specific TSA office, online and phone reporting to national TSA office, etc...), and move on to the airlines and lobbying groups like the ACLU, NOW (although they've not really shown too much of an interest here), and so on.

Again, I'm glad that you don't personally feel violated. But please don't think that "it just wasn't your day" or something. This was unacceptable and should not have happened. (And, sorry to say, you will likely never find out exactly what caused the alarm.)


*Of course, "one would think" a lot of things about this organization that prove not to be true...

If you were asked to remove your blouse and let your pants down to your ankles, and then parts of your body were touched...the term "strip search" is totally appropriate to describe your experience.

There will, nonetheless, be people who try to minimize what you experienced by using some sort of euphemism that weakens the impact, both to you and to the people who did this to you.

It is impossible, at this point, to know what caused your alarm. It could have been that your screener used a contaminated swab and/or gloves. In any case, they can't have *REALLY* thought you had kaboom-residue on you, or else they would not have been so eager to be alone in a room with you and the stash of kaboom you would have had on your person, if you were truly up to something nefarious.

I was placed in a room with one woman and another woman came in and asked me to remove my blouse - not bra and to lower my pants (jeans) to my knees, the one then went over me with the wand and then the other told me she was going to do a pat down which she did. They were professional about it, no complaint there stricky business like. When they were done they filled out some form they had on clip board, told me to redress then left and the guy came in, at which point I was already redressed.

I don't take any pills, and I just use simple soap and water when traveling because personally I hate some loaded down with smells. As I said I had little in my purse and as far as I know nothing has been in contact with anything unusual.

Why in the world did you consent to this? I hope you are aware that you had the right to refuse, and then to demand the police be called, the TSA terminal manager and the ground security coordinator for the airline.

They have no right to order you to disrobe and you have no obligation to disrobe - and I'd hope you'd be willing to miss your flight in order to stand up for your rights here.

I strongly suggest you contact an attorney immediately to determine your options to move against the TSA and the airport authority.

Never ever ever consent to disrobe or permit inappropriate touching, and never consent to go into the private screening area without the police, a TSA manager *and* your airline's GSC present as witnesses.

OP, may I ask how they patted you down after you'd removed your blouse and dropped your jeans to your knees? Did the woman put her hand in your crotch?

I don't know whether to praise you for keeping yourself under control or whether to flail you for allowing them to do this to you. I supposed I could do both.

It must have been totally humiliating standing there with your pants down around your knees and just your bra on.

I, too, would suggest that you find an attorney and contact the ACLU.

From reading all this I guess the term I used strip search was wrong or not depending on who is responding. To my mind it is when they ask to remove clothing but perhaps I am incorrect. I was not asked to remove my bra or underwear.
I have no complaint with the way the ladies did it as I said it was professional. The man did not come back into the room until I was fully redressed and I have no complaints as to his treatment of me with the exception that he did not answer my question.
I am just really wondering what they think they found on me that gave them this positive test.
I never though people would get so worked up over this issue I though this was just some fluke and I happened to be the person involved.

If TSA reduced your clothing to bra and panties you were violated.

Read the article at this link. The persons contact is at the bottom of the article.

http://www.prlog.org/11522713-new-weapon-against-tsa-gropings-torts.html

This poor woman. No way in the world would I EVER consent to this. I have chills even thinking about it. As much as I love to travel, if it is coming to this, my flying days are done.

First I didn't think to refuse so I did allow them to do the search. I was just thinking that's how they do it.
"Did the woman put her hand in your crotch?"
she just passed her hand over the area she did not do anything else, so the answer would be simple quick pass NO heavy touching, ditto breast she used the edge of the hand to go under the bra and over the top. Hands down my legs on both sides and that was it. At my age I do not have a hot body. As I have said before I didn't think to refuse and they were professional in their manner.

I guess I was naive in thinking I should do what they asked and though I have flown quite a bit this is the first time I have not passed right on through, so to be honest I just didn't think of it as a major invasion of my rights. I just thought "oh well I am this flights lucky one" Guess I need to get educated and make some contacts as suggested.

Where were your belongings while this violation was going on? Did they bring them into the room with you or leave them outside?

PLEASE follow up with some of the references provided. This was totally unconscionable that you were treated in this manner.

First I didn't think to refuse so I did allow them to do the search. I was just thinking that's how they do it.
"Did the woman put her hand in your crotch?"
she just passed her hand over the area she did not do anything else, so the answer would be simple quick pass NO heavy touching, ditto breast she used the edge of the hand to go under the bra and over the top. Hands down my legs on both sides and that was it. At my age I do not have a hot body. As I have said before I didn't think to refuse and they were professional in their manner.

I guess I was naive in thinking I should do what they asked and though I have flown quite a bit this is the first time I have not passed right on through, so to be honest I just didn't think of it as a major invasion of my rights. I just thought "oh well I am this flights lucky one" Guess I need to get educated and make some contacts as suggested.

The reason it is important to protest, refuse, complain and all of that, is because even if you did not personally feel violated, probably most people would and by not complaining, it makes it very likely to happen to others. By complaining, taking legal action, talking to reporters, whatever you can do, you potentially spare another person an experience they would probably find much more traumatizing. Make as big a fuss as you can, if not for yourself, for the woman in line for the next flight.

The reason it is important to protest, refuse, complain and all of that, is because even if you did not personally feel violated, probably most people would and by not complaining, it makes it very likely to happen to others. By complaining, taking legal action, talking to reporters, whatever you can do, you potentially spare another person an experience they would probably find much more traumatizing. Make as big a fuss as you can, if not for yourself, for the woman in line for the next flight.

A woman who could be the OP's friend, daughter, granddaughter, etc. -- someone to whom she would undoubtedly not want this to happen.

Nonetheless, I totally understand why she accepted it. Caught off guard by it, and led by someone in uniform, wearing a badge and carrying a clipboard, it would be easy to think that one is dealing with a law enforcement officer carrying out her duties appropriately.

If TSA reduced your clothing to bra and panties you were violated.

Whereas if they had left your clothes on but used their magic technology to look through your bra and panties to see what is underneath, that would have been perfectly within their rights and powers.

Could someone please explain this to me?:confused:

A woman who could be the OP's friend, daughter, granddaughter, etc. -- someone to whom she would undoubtedly not want this to happen.

Nonetheless, I totally understand why she accepted it. Caught off guard by it, and led by someone in uniform, wearing a badge and carrying a clipboard, it would be easy to think that one is dealing with a law enforcement officer carrying out her duties appropriately.

Oh for sure, no fair faulting the OP. But this is how it starts. Take the unsuspecting, be all "official" and "professional" :rolleyes: about it, and slowly establish a culture of normalcy around the whole thing.

But this is not ok. At all.

And I'm wondering where all the TSA peeps are...perhaps they've PM'ed the OP to apologize for the accusations of lying...But it would be nice if they could come and answer the question as to whether this is a "soft launch" of a new SOP, just so the rest of us can make informed travel decisions...ahem...

...ditto breast she used the edge of the hand to go under the bra and over the top. Hands down my legs on both sides and that was it.

Apologies for one more request for clarification, but was she touching your bare skin in these procedures? That is,

1) By "under the bra" do you mean she touched your bare midriff, or actually put her hands inside the fabric of your bra? She touched your breasts over your bra?

2) Did she stroke down your bare legs after you lowered your jeans?

You are NOT the only woman this has happened to: an aide in my doctor's office says her sister hasn't flown since her metal hip implant led to a very similar search in 2003. Please don't be intimidated by the intensity FTers express our indignation over what happened to you, or imply you should have known yesterday what some of us learned the day before.

What's wrong with this event reflects far less on a person cooperating with perceived authority than it does on those who abused theirs.

Where were your belongings while this violation was going on? Did they bring them into the room with you or leave them outside? The handbag was handed off to another person and handed back to me as I left, I checked it when it was handed to me and every thing was in order. Well not quite the camera was on but that was it.

1) By "under the bra" do you mean she touched your bare midriff, or actually put her hands inside the fabric of your bra? She touched your breasts over your bra?
she turned her hands on the edge and ran them around the outside under the bra and then made a quick pass over the top but did not go inside bra, so yes she did touch my skin, I thought they were checking for whatever they thought was the substance they thought I had.

2) Did she stroke down your bare legs after you lowered your jeans?
she just ran hands down the sides but not back up.

I am hopefully a law abiding person and when they asked me to do something I did it without a second thought. As I said I guess I was naive about the whole process

Remember everyone when the TSA spokesperson said they could demand a real strip search of the passengers if they so chose to do it.

I think TSA already does this to some passengers under certain circumstances, but I wonder if real strip searches are now being tested to see how the passengers react when they are taken to the private room and are informed by a TSA Screener. We now need you to remove your clothes so we can do the patdown.

I wonder if real strip searches are now being tested to see how the passengers react to being told to remove their clothes.

Anything for safety! :(

Don't hold your breath.

I'm not.

Add my +1 to want to see Bart apologize. :td:

Remember everyone when the TSA spokesperson said they could demand a real strip search of the passengers if they so chose to do it.
That's a misrepresentation of a statement made in the oral arguments of the EPIC lawsuit.

OP, I regret that you were subjected to this treatment which is certainly outside of stated protocol. See TSA webpage below

http://www.tsa.gov/travelers/airtravel/specialneeds/editorial_1370.shtm

I strongly suggest that you not make any further statements regarding this incident, particularly regarding your impression or feelings, until you speak to an attorney. Any further statements or recounting of this should be strictly limited to the actual circumstances and events without reference to your reaction until you have discussed this in detail with legal counsel. There could be a large damages award at stake and making statements to the effect that this was acceptable could reduce the size of the award.

Your impressions aside, this was NOT okay and this sort of abuse by TSA should not be facilitated by rationalizing this violation. Doing so will only expose another woman to a similar experience in the future. Whenever a victim refuses to prosecute their attacker, they enable future crimes by allowing the perpetrator to remain at large.

Should you choose not to engage a personal attorney please consider one of the following resources so that TSA does not continue this practice:

EPIC http://epic.org/

The Rutherford Institute http://www.rutherford.org/

John F. Banzhaf III,
Professor of Public Interest Law, FAMRI
George Washington Univ. Law School,
2000 H Street, N.W., Stockton Hall 402
Washington, DC 20052
(202) 994-7229 Fax: (202) 994-1684
SEND EMAIL: contact@banzhaf.net

Remember everyone when the TSA spokesperson said they could demand a real strip search of the passengers if they so chose to do it.

I think TSA already does this to some passengers under certain circumstances, but I wonder if real strip searches are now being tested to see how the passengers react when they are taken to the private room and are informed by a TSA Screener. We now need you to remove your clothes so we can do the patdown.

No, I don't remember them saying that

No, I don't remember them saying that

I do. It was in the last EPIC scanner testimony in March. Federal attorney Beth Brinkmann responded to a question posed by one of the judges which asked if TSA had the authority to strip search passengers under current authorization.

Brinkmann said TSA could make such a determination without public input, as it did with the body scanners. But she said both are subject to the court's review, and in the case of the strip search, "I think you'd have an overwhelming Fourth Amendment claim."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/03/10/AR2011031003628.html

I am hopefully a law abiding person and when they asked me to do something I did it without a second thought. As I said I guess I was naive about the whole process

P.S. While I was writing Fisher1949 has offered excellent advice: if I were in your place I would follow it! I'm going to post this anyway in hope it can add something to the discussion, and some points may need clarification or elaboration by other FTers that can help you use legal advice as efficiently as possible.

Your status as a law-abiding person is actually the root of the problem with how you were treated, even though the screeners didn't scream at or physically hurt you. You can review the basis of how law-abiding people in Fresno ought to be treated in Article IV of the Bill of Rights (http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html). (Blue text can be clicked on to link to it directly.) There are several problems with what happened to you.

The first is the validity of the "explosives test" that was done on your belongings. Accurately finding low-level, invisible chemical traces (amounts too small to cause visible color, odor that humans can detect, or difference to touch) on everyday objects requires specific, complicated equipment which must be clean, correctly adjusted, and properly used. Even when all these conditions are met, results can be "false-positive" which means the test alerted to something different from the substance being tested for.

From your account it's not clear to me how you could know if those conditions were met for your "test." Did you see if the swabs used on your belongings came fresh out of a clean container, or were they being re-used? Did the testers wear gloves that had touched other peoples' things, or the surfaces they had been set down on? Would you, personally, even know if testers were following correct testing procedures? Was there any documentation posted to show how long ago the machines were calibrated? They expected you to accept all of this on nothing but their word, which unfortunately is of very questionable reliability.

Even if your belongings alarmed due to some ordinary non-explosive residue like hand lotion, it would be rare for absolutely everything to come up positive. Your descriptions sound like they weren't being careful to avoid cross-contamination, misunderstood the procedure or equipment, didn't care, or lied.

The second problem is that, even if they now have the responsibility to be sure you're not carrying explosives onto a plane, they know, or should know, that their tests almost always alarm on things like hand lotion or lawn fertilizer. (Does anyone know if TSA passenger tests have ever revealed real explosives? I've never read about an incident.) So on a statistical basis alone, they should know their test is probably false.

The third problem is that no one, even a real police officer (which TSA screeners are not), has the authority to require you to remove clothing beyond what's acceptable in public unless you have been arrested and are about to be taken into custody. A test that's wrong almost 100% of the time is waaay short of enough reason to arrest you, which can only be done by a law enforcement officer (LEO).

The fourth problem is that, after they persuaded you to take your clothes off, nothing they were supposed to be looking for could be detected by touching your bare skin—which they could now clearly see. (Unless you're very obese, which seems unlikely from the search you described). Your age or looks have nothing to do with the level of privacy you should expect.

As Lara21 points out, I agree this looks like a test of some kind. If you'd been asked to volunteer, and were willing to get stark nekkid and dance the hula in the name of safety, you had the right to say yes. But you weren't asked, which stole your right to say no.

You sound like a nice person, I am so sorry this was done to you.

Whereas if they had left your clothes on but used their magic technology to look through your bra and panties to see what is underneath, that would have been perfectly within their rights and powers.

Could someone please explain this to me?:confused:

I didn't say or imply that.

I think it is wrong to have an electronic strip search as a first screening method. A real physcial strip search should not even be in TSA's tool bag.

I am also so sorry you went through this.



Sure, if one's business is forcing a passenger to be half-naked in order board a plane.

Did you protest what you were being asked? If so, were you told that you would not be flying if you did not comply?

Sickening.

With all due respect.. we probably all agree its inconvenient and a bit invasive of our privacy..

However, short of getting potentially arrested.. its best to comply with the authorities until deemed completely unreasonable.. that is if we wish to board a plane in the hopes of getting to our destination with minimal issues..
Why do a pat down if the person is only wearing a bra and panties?

And what if the person would not have worn any bra and/or panties?

What would then the result be?

Arrest for indicent exposure?

And why would a male come into a room when a woman has been ordered to stirip to her undies?

I thought male's were not allowed to be a part of a female search.
To me he was since he didnt know if she was dressed or not.

Unless they have hidden cameras in there.

I'm only aware of the same sexes allowed to conduct strip searches..

Or has this rule changed?

I was placed in a room with one woman and another woman came in and asked me to remove my blouse - not bra and to lower my pants (jeans) to my knees, the one then went over me with the wand and then the other told me she was going to do a pat down which she did. They were professional about it, no complaint there stricky business like. When they were done they filled out some form they had on clip board, told me to redress then left and the guy came in, at which point I was already redressed.

I don't take any pills, and I just use simple soap and water when traveling because personally I hate some loaded down with smells. As I said I had little in my purse and as far as I know nothing has been in contact with anything unusual.

And this was TSA? Not Customs?

I do. It was in the last EPIC scanner testimony in March. Federal attorney Beth Brinkmann responded to a question posed by one of the judges which asked if TSA had the authority to strip search passengers under current authorization.

Brinkmann said TSA could make such a determination without public input, as it did with the body scanners. But she said both are subject to the court's review, and in the case of the strip search, "I think you'd have an overwhelming Fourth Amendment claim."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/03/10/AR2011031003628.html

Besides the 'overwhelming 4th Amendment claim', they'd have my kneed in their face if they tried it.

I am truly shocked - and no offense to the OP who is not the first person we've heard of in this situation - that anyone would consent, even to the point of using violence to protect themselves, to allowing airport screeners to disrobe or strip search them.

I'd rather go to jail than be subjected to a strip search by airport screeners.

With all due respect.. we probably all agree its inconvenient and a bit invasive of our privacy..

A bit invasive? Being forced to strip down to one's underwear in an airport is a bit invasive? What then would you consider to be majorly invasive? I shudder to think.

However, short of getting potentially arrested.. its best to comply with the authorities until deemed completely unreasonable.. that is if we wish to board a plane in the hopes of getting to our destination with minimal issues..

Many of us on this board do not hold that stance. If the choice was between stripping or not getting on that plane, many of us would take the latter. The line's got to be drawn somewhere.

The TSA started strip-searching people years ago. Don't we all remember this charming story from 2004?
_______

In a report on WJLA Channel 7 News last night, unidentified screeners at Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport said women were being selected for private screening based on breast size and strip-searched. The searches were required after screeners kicked equipment to set off alarms.

"In a sense, they were being raped," one TSA screener said.

Strip searches were being conducted in a stairwell, WJLA reported, but were moved to a supervisor's private office where the activities were recorded on a hidden camera.

http://washingtontimes.com/national/20041124-115912-9297r.htm

______

We didn't stop the TSA's campaign of sexual abuse then, and seven years later innocent people are still being strip searched. When is enough sexual violence going to be enough? When is it going to stop?

A bit invasive? Being forced to strip down to one's underwear in an airport is a bit invasive? What then would you consider to be majorly invasive? I shudder to think..

I should have said most of us feel its 'at least' a bit invasive.. so the inclusion would have included those who felt the process was very invasive..

Thanks for the clarification..


Many of us on this board do not hold that stance. If the choice was between stripping or not getting on that plane, many of us would take the latter. The line's got to be drawn somewhere.

Like in previous posts.. with the nud-o-scan.. pretty much all Canadians are subject to the scanning machine that sees everything.. or a choice of a patdown..

I'm glad to see there is opposition to strip searches.. imo.. going a bit far, the security techniques.. TSA should re-evaluate their processes post terror era..

This isn't the first report of actual strip searches by the TSA. Here are some others:
_______________

I was flying with what I believe is called a Southwest "pink pass"; basically an employee perk that can be transferred to friends or family if not used personally. Anyway, it allows one to fly anywhere for free, standby. But because you're flying standby, you don't have a boarding pass when going through security. Which means you are a terrorist and need extra screening, even if you don't set off the walk-through metal detector (which I didn't).

So I was wanded, the wand beeped, I told them I have body piercings, which is normally no big deal, but I guess they really wanted a show. So I was taken back into the little room, and I had to remove my clothes for two female TSA employees. Afterwards, they rifled through my carry-on, and I had to explain what every little thing was.

_______

http://www.runnersworld.com/community/forums/general-discussion/letters-opinions/full-body-scanning-unacceptable-violation-of-privacy

_____________

I fly across country frequently, and I'm grateful for security. I've been stripped searched, patted down, etc.

And you know, the people doing it hate it more than the people on the receiving end.

{answering the question of why she was strip searched}

Because I kept setting off the metal detectors. I had nipple piercings, and they set it off. The chick who did it was cool about it though, we compared piercings, it was interesting.

_________

http://www.paganspace.net/forum/topics/tsa-out-of-control



__________
Women may be forced to remove skirts (official statement from the TSA)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o4GP_qlJAIA

____________

Remember everyone when the TSA spokesperson said they could demand a real strip search of the passengers if they so chose to do it.

I think TSA already does this to some passengers under certain circumstances, but I wonder if real strip searches are now being tested to see how the passengers react when they are taken to the private room and are informed by a TSA Screener. We now need you to remove your clothes so we can do the patdown.

Bolding mine. BLOOD CURDLING SCREAM!!!! :mad:

I should have said most of us feel its 'at least' a bit invasive.. so the inclusion would have included those who felt the process was very invasive..

Thanks for the clarification..



Like in previous posts.. with the nud-o-scan.. pretty much all Canadians are subject to the scanning machine that sees everything.. or a choice of a patdown..

I'm glad to see there is opposition to strip searches.. imo.. going a bit far, the security techniques.. TSA should re-evaluate their processes post terror era..

That is absolutely NOT true. This is the second time you've made that claim and I couldn't let this one go. I'm not sure where you are flying from or to or what experience you've had that has caused you to think this is true but it is not.

Definitions

Strip Search

Removal or rearrangement of clothing to permit visual inspection of a person's

undergarments

buttocks

anus

genitals

breasts


The following does not constitute a strip search:

removal or rearranging of clothing reasonably required to render medical treatment or assistance, or

removal of articles of outer clothing, such as coats, ties, belts or shoelaces.

Search Requirements
Detention or arrest without custodial confinement

Strip Search
NO exigent circumstances:

Search warrant or consent, and
Authorized by officer in charge of the station house.


Exigent circumstances:

Probable cause to believe that the person is concealing a weapon, contraband or evidence of crime, and

Exigent circumstances prevent obtaining a search warrant or approval of officer in charge.

I don't know if these if the Feds use the same guidelines but I figured I would post this.

Definitions

Strip Search

Removal or rearrangement of clothing to permit visual inspection of a person's

undergarments

buttocks

anus

genitals

breasts


The following does not constitute a strip search:

removal or rearranging of clothing reasonably required to render medical treatment or assistance, or

removal of articles of outer clothing, such as coats, ties, belts or shoelaces.

In North Korea maybe. This is America. Take YOUR ignorant definition back to what ever police state country you got it from.

(Mod's..... I only speak the truth)

Somebody asked in an earlier post what constitutes a strip search and I just posted its definition and the requirements to conduct one ( based on NJ law ) for all to read.

No where in my post does it state my position on what occurred.

No need to get your panties in a bunch sweet cheeks!

If anyone tells me I have to pull my pants down to my knees...... it's a strip search. I believe MOST people would concur if it happened to them.

And in any case, Whether it it fits the New Jersey legal definition for LEO's dealing with criminal suspects or not, TSA has no right to do what was described to an innocent traveller.

No need to get your panties in a bunch sweet cheeks!

Sorry man. This kind of stuff just gets me really angry and fired up. It's just so wrong on so many levels. I feel like screaming, someone need to do something to stop this.

If anyone tells me I have to pull my pants down to my knees...... it's a strip search. I believe MOST people would concur if it happened to them.

And in any case, Whether it it fits the New Jersey legal definition for LEO's dealing with criminal suspects or not, TSA has no right to do what was described to an innocent traveller.

No need to get your panties in a bunch sweet cheeks!

Sorry man. This kind of stuff just gets me really angry and fired up. It's just so wrong on so many levels. I feel like screaming, someone need to do something to stop this.

No need to be sorry bro...I understand that these clowns are getting worse and worse as time goes on and it's frustrating that they are allowed to do as they please. If I was to pull some of these stunts, I'll be in federal court having my azz handed to me.

That's a misrepresentation of a statement made in the oral arguments of the EPIC lawsuit.

No it wasn't a misrepresentation of what was said because that was exactly what I got was being implied in an around about way in that oral statement. That TSA could demand the passengers submit to a strip search if TSA so chose to do that kind of search of the passengers and the courts could deal with it after the fact.

You don't think that is what she meant?

If not. What do you think she meant in her oral statement about TSA and strip searches?

Her oral statement sure didn't have a answer of no TSA would not do that to the passengers.

First I didn't think to refuse so I did allow them to do the search. I was just thinking that's how they do it.
"Did the woman put her hand in your crotch?"
she just passed her hand over the area she did not do anything else, so the answer would be simple quick pass NO heavy touching, ditto breast she used the edge of the hand to go under the bra and over the top. Hands down my legs on both sides and that was it. At my age I do not have a hot body. As I have said before I didn't think to refuse and they were professional in their manner.

I guess I was naive in thinking I should do what they asked and though I have flown quite a bit this is the first time I have not passed right on through, so to be honest I just didn't think of it as a major invasion of my rights. I just thought "oh well I am this flights lucky one" Guess I need to get educated and make some contacts as suggested.

It has nothing to do with a hot body, and frankly that gets one of these from me. :rolleyes:

It has to do with the fact that you stood in your underwear, with your pants down, while someone touched you, simply because you wanted to fly.

I am really struggling to understand how you don't see this as an inappropriate response to the 'threat' you presented.

Unforutnately I think that this is representative of the 'everything for safety' and 'they were just doing their job' crowd.

Like in previous posts.. with the nud-o-scan.. pretty much all Canadians are subject to the scanning machine that sees everything.. or a choice of a patdown..

I'm glad to see there is opposition to strip searches.. imo.. going a bit far, the security techniques.. TSA should re-evaluate their processes post terror era..

I'm sorry, but you are absolutely and utterly incorrect.

Canada uses MMW, mostly for US bound flights. There is random selection of a small percentage of travellers via the mat. One big difference from TSA is that one is clearly offered a choice of the scan or a pat down. The second big difference is that the pat down is nothing like the current TSA pat down.

That is very far from 'all Canadians' being required to do a scan or the pat down.

That is absolutely NOT true. This is the second time you've made that claim and I couldn't let this one go. I'm not sure where you are flying from or to or what experience you've had that has caused you to think this is true but it is not.

Sorry Mimi, I missed your reply so I did an edit. I believe that poster is an infrequent leisure traveller, flying mainly from central Canada to MCO, based on previous posts.

That experience would be different from people flying in Canada to domestic destinations, or to international destinations (other than the US)

I'm still not convinced that this was a TSA search. There is nothing in the TSA SOP that requires officers to instruct or force passengers to remove blouses or otherwise strip down to the bra.

With the term "at security" applying loosely, I am curious if this was an inspection by customs. If so, I can't comment because I don't know their procedures.

If it was TSA (and that's a big IF), then I fully agree that the OP has a very legitimate complaint. But I have yet to be convinced that TSOs were involved.

I'm still not convinced that this was a TSA search. There is nothing in the TSA SOP that requires officers to instruct or force passengers to remove blouses or otherwise strip down to the bra.

With the term "at security" applying loosely, I am curious if this was an inspection by customs. If so, I can't comment because I don't know their procedures.

If it was TSA (and that's a big IF), then I fully agree that the OP has a very legitimate complaint. But I have yet to be convinced that TSOs were involved.

Is there customs at FAT?

Is there customs at FAT?

As of January 2011, there was CBP at FAT because there was a Mexicana flight that (at the time) using FAT. Reference here (http://www.airportbusiness.com/online/article.jsp?siteSection=1&id=38767&pageNum=2). Article discusses the cost of CBP to the Airport to process the Mexicana flight(s).

Mexicana is still a listed airline (http://www.fresno.gov/DiscoverFresno/Airports/AirlineServiceandAirCargoInformation.htm) at this time per the FAT website.

CBP webpage (http://www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/toolbox/contacts/ports/ca/2803.xml") still lists a Fresno Port of Entry.

Not trying to be defensive here, but I am really curious if this was a Customs inspection because our uniforms are too damn alike.

By the way, for those who don't know, I've always opposed the current TSA uniform. I do not like the LEO-like appearance. I am more for the khaki and pullover appearance because it is more practical, whether working checkpoint or checked baggage. I disagree with the whole notion that metal badges make us more professional, and, having carried a badge for over 20 years, I see a lot of potential problems that come with just having a badge.

At any rate, this would not be the first time that CBP was mistaken for TSA.

I recently flew to Mexico and on entering security at departure airport FAT was told my bags and clothes tested positive.

This would mean that if it were customs, it would be preclearance for Mexican customs at FAT, correct?

And this was TSA? Not Customs?

Considering what TSA has been done in Newark and Hawaii why would you be surprised?

Does customs generally get involved in resolving security alarms on outbound international flights?

Whereas if they had left your clothes on but used their magic technology to look through your bra and panties to see what is underneath, that would have been perfectly within their rights and powers.

Could someone please explain this to me?:confused:
In my opinion, TSA is NOT within their rights to use a NoS, or any form of visual / imaging inspection underneath clothing. They assert they are within their powers to do both.

Where were your belongings while this violation was going on? Did they bring them into the room with you or leave them outside? The handbag was handed off to another person and handed back to me as I left, I checked it when it was handed to me and every thing was in order. Well not quite the camera was on but that was it.

Underlining mine to indicate the question that nco4242 is replying to. There is the potential here that the screeners examined the photos in the camera, which is clearly outside their authority to screen only for W/E/I. :td:

PLEASE submit a complaint to DHS, TSA, your Senators and Representative, ACLU, EPIC, etc!

The handbag was handed off to another person and handed back to me as I left, I checked it when it was handed to me and every thing was in order. Well not quite the camera was on but that was it.

Why is the TSA snooping through passengers' cameras?

Why is the TSA snooping through passengers' cameras?

If there was ever a YouTube moment-in-the-making, they were about to have one.

Not trying to be defensive here, but I am really curious if this was a Customs inspection because our uniforms are too damn alike.

By the way, for those who don't know, I've always opposed the current TSA uniform. I do not like the LEO-like appearance. I am more for the khaki and pullover appearance because it is more practical, whether working checkpoint or checked baggage. I disagree with the whole notion that metal badges make us more professional, and, having carried a badge for over 20 years, I see a lot of potential problems that come with just having a badge.

At any rate, this would not be the first time that CBP was mistaken for TSA.

Good post - similar AUX and P/T police officers who wear a police uniform and possibly even drive a CVPI... with the only difference being AUX marked somewhere on the car and AUX appearing somewhere on a patch...when a member of the public sees the uniform and the car...and they need assistance, they don't distinguish, they just go to them for help. The problem is many AUX officers are not allowed to carry. I can see how that could happen between CBP and TSA. It is possible that there is confusion here.

Why is the TSA snooping through passengers' cameras?

If it powers up, it's a camera, not a bomb disguised to look like a camera. That would be the security premise for turning on a camera/laptop/other electronic device.

What do you think she meant in her oral statement about TSA and strip searches?

Her oral statement sure didn't have a answer of no TSA would not do that to the passengers.
You misunderstand the nature of oral arguments in an appeals court. The questions are very often (as in this case) hypotheticals meant to explore the boundaries of what the advocate perceives to be the law. There's been no posted transcript of the hearing, but knowing the way these arguments work, I'm almost certain you are misinterpreting what was said.

The way I understand the exchange, the court was trying to address the issue of regulatory authority, whether TSA needs to have a formal regulatory process or can just make a change in checkpoint procedures without such a process. TSA was claiming the latter. To explore the boundaries of that, the court asked a question, specifying what everybody understood would be an unacceptable procedure. The TSA's answer was that was no matter what the procedure, they didn't need to go through a formal regulatory process. The discussion there was about the process of changing the procedure, not the acceptability of specific procedures, and indeed the US attorney said that such a procedure would have 4th Amendment issues.

If it powers up, it's a camera, not a bomb disguised to look like a camera. That would be the security premise for turning on a camera/laptop/other electronic device.

Or so they'd have us believe. Real security personnel make the person carrying it turn it on, not remove the device from the person and take it somewhere else to turn it on.

If they really thought it might be a bomb, why are they playing with it?

I'm still not convinced that this was a TSA search. There is nothing in the TSA SOP that requires officers to instruct or force passengers to remove blouses or otherwise strip down to the bra.

With the term "at security" applying loosely, I am curious if this was an inspection by customs. If so, I can't comment because I don't know their procedures.

If it was TSA (and that's a big IF), then I fully agree that the OP has a very legitimate complaint. But I have yet to be convinced that TSOs were involved.

The OP stated this was when being screened for departure at FAT. Since you don't clear customs when departing the US on an international flight, I think it's safe to say with 100% certainty that these actions were performed by TSA smurfs.

The OP stated this was when being screened for departure at FAT. Since you don't clear customs when departing the US on an international flight, I think it's safe to say with 100% certainty that these actions were performed by TSA smurfs.

Bolding mine: Naughty, you! Using the S-word! Mods swooping down on your post in 5....4....3....2... :rolleyes:

Or so they'd have us believe. Real security personnel make the person carrying it turn it on, not remove the device from the person and take it somewhere else to turn it on.

If they really thought it might be a bomb, why are they playing with it?

Excellent point! What if turning if turning it on resulted in a detonation...oh, never mind....wishful thinking again! </sarcasm>

Or so they'd have us believe. Real security personnel make the person carrying it turn it on, not remove the device from the person and take it somewhere else to turn it on.

If they really thought it might be a bomb, why are they playing with it?

Correct. Overseas I have been asked to power up devices by foreign security screeners on a number of occasions. In every case they asked me to power up my device, visually verified it powered up and then asked me to turn it off.

I'm still not convinced that this was a TSA search. There is nothing in the TSA SOP that requires officers to instruct or force passengers to remove blouses or otherwise strip down to the bra.

With the term "at security" applying loosely, I am curious if this was an inspection by customs. If so, I can't comment because I don't know their procedures.

If it was TSA (and that's a big IF), then I fully agree that the OP has a very legitimate complaint. But I have yet to be convinced that TSOs were involved.

Nice change of terms Bart. At first you called the OP a liar and said they were never strip-searched, now you claimed they were never strip-searched "by the TSA". Way to go.

If it powers up, it's a camera, not a bomb disguised to look like a camera. That would be the security premise for turning on a camera/laptop/other electronic device.

I wouldn't rely on that premise.

The OP stated this was when being screened for departure at FAT. Since you don't clear customs when departing the US on an international flight, I think it's safe to say with 100% certainty that these actions were performed by TSA smurfs.

Nobody wants to be the one who stole the cookie from this cookie jar.

The OP stated this was when being screened for departure at FAT. Since you don't clear customs when departing the US on an international flight, I think it's safe to say with 100% certainty that these actions were performed by TSA smurfs.

US Customs can and occasionally does detain and search passengers on departure. In every case I have ever personally heard of the passenger is detained at the gate during boarding. I'm not a lawyer but I believe this is because simply entering the secure area does not constitute "leaving the country" wheres actively boarding a international flight does legally constitute "leaving the country" so that is the point where US Customs has authority to conduct a search. I believe that even if TSA tipped off US Customs to something they saw at the checkpoint, they would still stop the traveler at the gate on boarding. If anything happened at the checkpoint it would be local LEO, not US Customs.

First I didn't think to refuse so I did allow them to do the search. I was just thinking that's how they do it.
"Did the woman put her hand in your crotch?"
she just passed her hand over the area she did not do anything else, so the answer would be simple quick pass NO heavy touching, ditto breast she used the edge of the hand to go under the bra and over the top. Hands down my legs on both sides and that was it. At my age I do not have a hot body. As I have said before I didn't think to refuse and they were professional in their manner.

I guess I was naive in thinking I should do what they asked and though I have flown quite a bit this is the first time I have not passed right on through, so to be honest I just didn't think of it as a major invasion of my rights. I just thought "oh well I am this flights lucky one" Guess I need to get educated and make some contacts as suggested.
For future reference, TSOs are not law enforcement officers. They have no powers of arrest, detention or seizure. They are no different than the clerks at the Post Office, notwithstanding the police-like uniforms and fake badges. Would you follow a postal clerk into a private room and take off your clothes in front of her?

This is America. The 4th Amendment still applies, notwithstanding was TSA thinks. Please, if this ever happens to you again, call a law enforcement officer and tell him or her that, as an American, you will not agree to being strip searched in a private room by clerks.

I'm sorry, but you are absolutely and utterly incorrect.

Canada uses MMW, mostly for US bound flights. There is random selection of a small percentage of travellers via the mat. One big difference from TSA is that one is clearly offered a choice of the scan or a pat down. The second big difference is that the pat down is nothing like the current TSA pat down.

That is very far from 'all Canadians' being required to do a scan or the pat down.



Sorry Mimi, I missed your reply so I did an edit. I believe that poster is an infrequent leisure traveller, flying mainly from central Canada to MCO, based on previous posts.

That experience would be different from people flying in Canada to domestic destinations, or to international destinations (other than the US)

No worries.

I believe that poster is flying from Calgary which seems to be a problem airport....see the latest "baby patdown" for evidence of that.

I've flown to the US 5 times in the past month from Ottawa, Toronto and Montreal. Haven't even seen the NoS in use let alone been selected for one.

Was selected flying back from Dallas in late May and opted out of course. Was one of the least offensive patdowns but still disgusting.

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (Linux; U; Android 2.2.1; en-us; SCH-I500 Build/FROYO) AppleWebKit/533.1 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0 Mobile Safari/533.1)

I'm still not convinced that this was a TSA search. There is nothing in the TSA SOP that requires officers to instruct or force passengers to remove blouses or otherwise strip down to the bra.

With the term "at security" applying loosely, I am curious if this was an inspection by customs. If so, I can't comment because I don't know their procedures.

If it was TSA (and that's a big IF), then I fully agree that the OP has a very legitimate complaint. But I have yet to be convinced that TSOs were involved.

Nice change of terms Bart. At first you called the OP a liar and said they were never strip-searched, now you claimed they were never strip-searched "by the TSA". Way to go.

Reading for comprehension isn't your strongest suit. I never called the OP a liar. In fact, I expressed an interest that the OP clarify certain points. I acknowledged the possibility that if the OP was required to remove her blouse, then perhaps this was a search by a different agency. TSA procedures do not require the removal of blouses. And if you read real closely, you'll see that I asked the OP to clarify that point, too.

Try again.

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (Linux; U; Android 2.2.1; en-us; SCH-I500 Build/FROYO) AppleWebKit/533.1 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0 Mobile Safari/533.1)

I'm still not convinced that this was a TSA search. There is nothing in the TSA SOP that requires officers to instruct or force passengers to remove blouses or otherwise strip down to the bra.

With the term "at security" applying loosely, I am curious if this was an inspection by customs. If so, I can't comment because I don't know their procedures.

If it was TSA (and that's a big IF), then I fully agree that the OP has a very legitimate complaint. But I have yet to be convinced that TSOs were involved.

Nice change of terms Bart. At first you called the OP a liar and said they were never strip-searched, now you claimed they were never strip-searched "by the TSA". Way to go.

Reading for comprehension isn't your strongest suit. I never called the OP a liar. In fact, I expressed an interest that the OP clarify certain points. I acknowledged the possibility that if the OP was required to remove her blouse, then perhaps this was a search by a different agency. TSA procedures do not require the removal of blouses. And if you read real closely, you'll see that I asked the OP to clarify that point, too.

Try again.

Post #16 posted by Bart:

There was no strip search, but I'm waiting for the OP to reply to the original question.

Sure looks like someone was challenging the OP's truthfulness. Perhaps we have two Bart's posting on FT.

Not trying to be defensive here, but I am really curious if this was a Customs inspection because our uniforms are too damn alike.

By the way, for those who don't know, I've always opposed the current TSA uniform. I do not like the LEO-like appearance. I am more for the khaki and pullover appearance because it is more practical, whether working checkpoint or checked baggage. I disagree with the whole notion that metal badges make us more professional, and, having carried a badge for over 20 years, I see a lot of potential problems that come with just having a badge.

At any rate, this would not be the first time that CBP was mistaken for TSA.

I agree both agencies wear uniforms. There are significant differences, the shades of the uniforms for one. The biggest difference is the firearm, baton, OC and handcuffs that are worn around a CBP Officers waist that is usually a dead giveaway. Let’s look at the procedure that the OP describes. She stated that her belongs were swabbed. CBP does not swab anything nor does it have the equipment at a port of entry to do that. Certainly, if CBP did have that type of equipment, it would not be at the Fresno CA port of entry. When CBP has escalated to the point of a partial body search, a supervisor is most often there and there is documentation that is given to the passenger in the form of a comment card and a brochure that describes the process.

As some have mentioned here, outbound inspections occur in the jet way. There is a very specific reason that it starts in the jet way. The OP was clear that her experience started in security. CBP does not employ metal detectors or AIT's so it is kind of unlikely that the OP mistook the location. CBP Officer's on occasion may be present at the checkpoint. However, they are most often looking for Immigration violators or customs violations. A CBP officer again in this context would not be swabbing belongings for any type of test.

The OP's story certainly out of the ordinary but I don't think it was a CBP inspection.

FB

^ http://www.ehow.com/how_4505960_make-citizen_s-arrest-california.html

I'm awaiting the day it happens. I hope it's soon.

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (Linux; U; Android 2.2.1; en-us; SCH-I500 Build/FROYO) AppleWebKit/533.1 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0 Mobile Safari/533.1)



Reading for comprehension isn't your strongest suit. I never called the OP a liar. In fact, I expressed an interest that the OP clarify certain points. I acknowledged the possibility that if the OP was required to remove her blouse, then perhaps this was a search by a different agency. TSA procedures do not require the removal of blouses. And if you read real closely, you'll see that I asked the OP to clarify that point, too.

Try again.

There was no strip search, but I'm waiting for the OP to reply to the original question.

So what did you mean by this comment?

You misunderstand the nature of oral arguments in an appeals court. The questions are very often (as in this case) hypotheticals meant to explore the boundaries of what the advocate perceives to be the law. There's been no posted transcript of the hearing, but knowing the way these arguments work, I'm almost certain you are misinterpreting what was said.

The way I understand the exchange, the court was trying to address the issue of regulatory authority, whether TSA needs to have a formal regulatory process or can just make a change in checkpoint procedures without such a process. TSA was claiming the latter. To explore the boundaries of that, the court asked a question, specifying what everybody understood would be an unacceptable procedure. The TSA's answer was that was no matter what the procedure, they didn't need to go through a formal regulatory process. The discussion there was about the process of changing the procedure, not the acceptability of specific procedures, and indeed the US attorney said that such a procedure would have 4th Amendment issues.

But my impression was that her answer seem to be saying that TSA has the right to do any search of the passengers that they want to do even if it does violate the 4th amendment. That the court could work that pesky problem out of passengers rights being violated.

However, short of getting potentially arrested.. its best to comply with the authorities until deemed completely unreasonable..

If all through the course of human history, everyone always did what "the authorities" wanted, we would be still building pyramids.


And this was TSA? Not Customs?

Does Customs have this kind of test equipment?

EDIT: It appears not, see below.

Let’s look at the procedure that the OP describes. She stated that her belongs were swabbed. CBP does not swab anything nor does it have the equipment at a port of entry to do that. Certainly, if CBP did have that type of equipment, it would not be at the Fresno CA port of entry.

nco4242, I want to echo the pleas of others to report this to the ACLU and perhaps find an attorney to file a lawsuit. I am glad it was not traumatic for you, but the thought of this happening to my own mother (who is about your age) is deeply disturbing to me. My mother is targeted more often than most, possibly because of her age or ethnicity, and if TSA is allowed to get away with this kind of action, I fear this will happen eventually to her and the mothers of other people.

What happened to you was inappropriate and, according to the TSOs here, not according to protocol. Please, please do something now, not for yourself, but for the other women in the future for whom this may be deeply traumatic.

But my impression was that her answer seem to be saying that TSA has the right to do any search of the passengers that they want to do even if it does violate the 4th amendment. That the court could work that pesky problem out of passengers rights being violated.

That's exactly the way I understood it also: they will do whatever searches they want to do and if the people don't like it, let the court sort it out.

But my impression was that her answer seem to be saying that TSA has the right to do any search of the passengers that they want to do even if it does violate the 4th amendment. That the court could work that pesky problem out of passengers rights being violated.
Again, none of us have seen the transcript. But from what I read, my understanding is that the comment related to the mechanism of the regulatory process, not to what would or wouldn't be done.

Wow all I asked was a simple question some of you are frankly way over the top for me. I never knew there were so many people willing to fight and argue about if a reported event happened at plane gate or security control or even if it happened.
So to answer a few last questions before I leave:
The camera was new and had no pictures on it. The Ipod was old and had some horse pictures on it, music and a couple of books, and a couple of podcasts I get nothing of interest to anyone, the pen was a local bank giveaway, again nothing of any interest. The search occurred at the security check point as I was leaving to go to the plane gates, not at plane gate. I have no idea of the condition of the machine, it did have some kind of fiber round disk and they used 2 or 3 of them, they did have rubber gloves on but again I have no idea if they had changed the prior to searching my handbag.
As I said I allowed them to do this, I was naive and after this discussion I am a lot smarter. I am making contact with the authorities and I consider the issue closed at this point. Thanks to everyone for their input.

Wow all I asked was a simple question some of you are frankly way over the top for me. I never knew there were so many people willing to fight and argue about if a reported event happened at plane gate or security control or even if it happened.
So to answer a few last questions before I leave:
The camera was new and had no pictures on it. The Ipod was old and had some horse pictures on it, music and a couple of books, and a couple of podcasts I get nothing of interest to anyone, the pen was a local bank giveaway, again nothing of any interest. The search occurred at the security check point as I was leaving to go to the plane gates, not at plane gate. I have no idea of the condition of the machine, it did have some kind of fiber round disk and they used 2 or 3 of them, they did have rubber gloves on but again I have no idea if they had changed the prior to searching my handbag.
As I said I allowed them to do this, I was naive and after this discussion I am a lot smarter. I am making contact with the authorities and I consider the issue closed at this point. Thanks to everyone for their input.

Great! And thank you for doing so.

I am making contact with the authorities and I consider the issue closed at this point. Thanks to everyone for their input.
Thanks for following up and don't accept a snow job!

Good luck

As I said I allowed them to do this, I was naive and after this discussion I am a lot smarter. I am making contact with the authorities and I consider the issue closed at this point. Thanks to everyone for their input.

Good thinking on both points.

some of you are frankly way over the top for me. I never knew there were so many people willing to fight and argue about if a reported event happened at plane gate or security control or even if it happened.

Thanks for participating in the discussion anyway. Stepping back a bit, I can imagine how you would feel that way.

Please consider where some of the rest of us are coming from: About four or five years ago, I started flying without presenting documentation of my identity ("showing ID") on principle. I don't think we should have to identify ourselves to our government and wait for permission to travel from one state to another, so I don't want to go along with doing so. I'm certain that if, at that time, I had told people, "Hey, in just a few years, in order to get on a plane, we'll have to let airport security guards use machines to look through our clothing at our naked bodies, and if we decline the virtual strip search, we'll be subjected to police-style body searches in which they'll lift our breasts and feel our scrotums -- sometimes in private rooms with our shirts off and pants pulled down," people would have told me I was out of my mind. Yet just a few years later, that's exactly what's happening.

TSA are on a path of increasingly-lawless behavior. They are way over the top.

Would you follow a postal clerk into a private room and take off your clothes in front of her?



Depending on what she looked like, I most likely would! :p

Wow all I asked was a simple question some of you are frankly way over the top for me. I never knew there were so many people willing to fight and argue about if a reported event happened at plane gate or security control or even if it happened.
So to answer a few last questions before I leave:
The camera was new and had no pictures on it. The Ipod was old and had some horse pictures on it, music and a couple of books, and a couple of podcasts I get nothing of interest to anyone, the pen was a local bank giveaway, again nothing of any interest. The search occurred at the security check point as I was leaving to go to the plane gates, not at plane gate. I have no idea of the condition of the machine, it did have some kind of fiber round disk and they used 2 or 3 of them, they did have rubber gloves on but again I have no idea if they had changed the prior to searching my handbag.
As I said I allowed them to do this, I was naive and after this discussion I am a lot smarter. I am making contact with the authorities and I consider the issue closed at this point. Thanks to everyone for their input.

Thanks for your input. I know that this has been a lot more of a reaction than you would have expected, but I really hope you will follow up and let us know what the authorities say and what the results are. We'd definitely appreciate it.

Mike

That is absolutely NOT true. This is the second time you've made that claim and I couldn't let this one go. I'm not sure where you are flying from or to or what experience you've had that has caused you to think this is true but it is not.

This was at Security entering into US on Spring Break..

The policy was implemented for nearly a month prior to our being scanned under the nude-o-scope machine..

Tried searching for the nude-o-scope thread.. can someone locate the FT thread and post the link? Thanks..

I'm sorry, but you are absolutely and utterly incorrect.

Canada uses MMW, mostly for US bound flights. There is random selection of a small percentage of travellers via the mat. One big difference from TSA is that one is clearly offered a choice of the scan or a pat down. The second big difference is that the pat down is nothing like the current TSA pat down.

That is very far from 'all Canadians' being required to do a scan or the pat down.



Sorry Mimi, I missed your reply so I did an edit. I believe that poster is an infrequent leisure traveller, flying mainly from central Canada to MCO, based on previous posts.

That experience would be different from people flying in Canada to domestic destinations, or to international destinations (other than the US)

I assumed the thread is about the TSA.. and I've stated that Canadians get nude-o-scanned or patted down by the TSA.. and it was always my assumption by the TSA..

I apologize for any confusion..:)

This was at Security entering into US on Spring Break..

The policy was implemented for nearly a month prior to our being scanned under the nude-o-scope machine..

Tried searching for the nude-o-scope thread.. can someone locate the FT thread and post the link? Thanks..

I find it very difficult to believe that you as an infrequent traveller have more experience with CATSA security to the US than the many people who post here who do fly regularly from Canada to the US or to other destinations.

That would be a significant change from the randomizer mat and choice of scanner vs pat down in Canada for the few who are selected. If such a change truly has been in place for three months now which meant that CATSA was doing a mandatory MMW scan on all US-bound passengers, I am very certain indeed that we would have heard about it here on FT as well as in the media.

That has not been the case, and I will personally consider my experience as well as the experiences of other posters over yours.

If all through the course of human history, everyone always did what "the authorities" wanted, we would be still building pyramids.



Lol!^

Law isn't perfect.. and the TSA rules on strip searches and nude-o-scope scans or choice of patdowns for Canadians.. is pretty flawed..

But we did want to proceed with our vacation.. so we took the scan.. and off to Spring Break we went..:cool:

I find it very difficult to believe that you as an infrequent traveller have more experience with CATSA security to the US than the many people who post here who do fly regularly from Canada to the US or to other destinations.

That would be a significant change from the randomizer mat and choice of scanner vs pat down in Canada for the few who are selected. If such a change truly has been in place for three months now which meant that CATSA was doing a mandatory MMW scan on all US-bound passengers, I am very certain indeed that we would have heard about it here on FT as well as in the media.

That has not been the case, and I will personally consider my experience as well as the experiences of other posters over yours.

AFAIK.. the policy was implemented and hasn't changed..

But, yes the policy could have changed..

I'm an infrequent flyer.. entering the US twice a year.. on a total of 5 to 6 weeks for vacation with my family..

It doesn't matter to me.. If the policy has changed.. good for TSA.. I would like this to happen.. but I don't think there has been any changes since Spring Break..

AFAIK.. the policy was implemented and hasn't changed..

But, yes the policy could have changed..

I'm an infrequent flyer.. entering the US twice a year.. on a total of 5 to 6 weeks for vacation with my family..

It doesn't matter to me.. If the policy has changed.. good for TSA.. I would like this to happen.. but I don't think there has been any changes since Spring Break..

C'est peut etre un question de langue. Mais votre reponse, que tous les canadiens faites un scan ou patdown a chaque volle, c'est incorrecte.

Your previous post: Like in previous posts.. with the nud-o-scan.. pretty much all Canadians are subject to the scanning machine that sees everything.. or a choice of a patdown..

C'est peut etre un question de langue. Mais votre reponse, que tous les canadiens faites un scan ou patdown a chaque volle, n'est pas correct.

Your previous post:

It is likely that at the time you passed through security, during spring break, the NoS was being used by TSA as primary at the checkpoint your were travelling through. Canadians, as far as I've seen, are not singled out any more than anyone else. We're all (Canadians, Americans and others) subject to the TSA's insanity.

Thankfully the same insanity is not commonplace here...at least not yet.

Merci..

My understanding is subject to correction.. and my experience at the time at point of entry was there was alot of complaints as Canadians were subject to the Nudo-o-scans.. in fact.. there was media attention to the multi million dollar purchases of these virtual strip searches that see everything..

If they are doing the scans random now.. then great.. I'm glad TSA smartened up..

However, nude-o-scans remain.. even at random patterns.. so the virtual strip searches are occuring daily as we speak..

The bottom line point is.. as Canadians (not sure about the Americans.. as I assume that they don't undergo nude-o-scans.. but again I'm not sure).. is that Canadians are virtually strip searched everyday.

imo.. I neither agree or disagree with this.. in fact I don't think much of it.. We choose as a family not to make an issue of it.. I spoke to my wife about it.. and she doesn't have a problem.. I don't have a problem.. so off to our vacations we go..:cool:

I said earlier in this thread that this incident and the following comments represents to me why we are still not much further along in changing things and most importantly changing the majority viewpoints towards what TSA is doing (in the US and outside of the US)

We have people who don't see an issue with dropping their pants and removing their tops; people who would rather just follow direction and be scanned rather than impact their vacation in any way; people who have no idea of their rights; people who are intimidated by those in authority; people who don't understand the basics of airport security, etc etc. (And this is just in this thread, and not just the OP)

'Naked guy climbing into the trunk of his car' had a significant impact on the public opinion of privacy rights and specifically on Google Streetview in Germany. I keep waiting for the equivalent version in regards to the TSA. How many times to we need to see or read such stories before people start questioning things? It seems like every time such a story comes out, there is a little brouhaha, but the majority still seems to think 'everything for safety', and 'it doesn't impact me because I don't fly much'.

I may be naive, but I keep hoping that one day soon 'older woman drops pants and removes blouse' will be the equivalent of 'naked guy climbing into trunk of his car'. I can only hope.

If they are doing the scans random now.. then great.. I'm glad TSA smartened up..

I frankly don't think that it is a language issue; I too am willing to converse in French if required but the board rules I think don't approve of that.

I think that you fail to understand.

There is no 'policy change' to make scans random 'now' in Canada. They were never mandatory, nor required of every traveller.

And CATSA does the screening in Canada. Yes, TSA influences what happens in other countries, but when you fly to the US it is CATSA screening you at your Canadian airport.

In all honesty.. I would have a problem being strip searched physically.. and I would be embarassed.. and so would most people that I know..

I agree TSA has jumped the gun implementing measures that really doesn't counteract the terrorism threat.. instead the are making law abiding citizens suffer for the few troublemakers that they seemed to be after.

I think TSA is starting to get the picture and feedback.. Obama administration is looking to cut.. so hopefully, its these unnecessary measures that don't add up to any measureable increase in safety.. really just inconvenience and harassment on some part seen by the public..

I frankly don't think that it is a language issue; I too am willing to converse in French if required but the board rules I think don't approve of that.

I think that you fail to understand.

There is no 'policy change' to make scans random 'now' in Canada. They were never mandatory, nor required of every traveller.

And CATSA does the screening in Canada. Yes, TSA influences what happens in other countries, but when you fly to the US it is CATSA screening you at your Canadian airport.

So how is a nude-o-scan determined in Canada?

The fact that it remains.. randomly.. or sequentially.. or any.. is a virtual strip search waiting to happen.. at the hands of the TSA.

Again, I may fail to understand.. that is correct.. and I stand corrected..

AFAIK.. these machines are operating everyday in our Canadian airports whether we want to acknowledge it or not..

Frankly.. again.. I don't care about these machines.. I just want to go to the US where we can vacation.. and if they tell us to nude-o-scan, and however embarassing it is.. we shall do the nude-o-scan.. I guess..

We can fight it as you say.. and take a stand.. I rather stand in the lines at WDW.. or a Hawaii restaurant.. or a theme park in SoCal.. spending valuable family time with my wife, 1 year old and 5 year old..

I give up. It's clear that Mimi and I apparently have English language issues as we do not seem to be able to communicate the facts.

As the entire CATSA and screening in Canada discussion is off topic to the OP's situation, I apologise for participating in the off topic discussion, and hope that we can return to the orginal topic of being forced to remove clothing for TSA screening.

There are any number of threads here discussing the CATSA screening methods and how they vary for US bound, domestic, and international travellers, should someone be seeking that information.

I give up. It's clear that Mimi and I apparently have English language issues as we do not seem to be able to communicate the facts.
At the risk of confusing further, I think Ancien Maestro is talking about TSA in US airports subjecting Canadian citizens to either the nude-o-scope or patdown, while you and Mimi are talking about CATSA policies at Canadian airports.

Or maybe not. But that's how I read it. :)

At the risk of confusing further, I think Ancien Maestro is talking about TSA in US airports subjecting Canadian citizens to either the nude-o-scope or patdown, while you and Mimi are talking about CATSA policies at Canadian airports.

Or maybe not. But that's how I read it. :)

i originally thought that as well and started to post a response to that effect but that would also be an incorrect assertion. So either way....

I'm giving up on this one as well. Don't want to derail the OP's post any further. ;)

There are forum members whose opinions I disagree with but whose word carries a lot of credibility with me in spite of those disagreements. Had one of them made this claim, I would PM them to get this matter addressed.

This may have happened as described. But I'm still skeptical and think the lot of you have been baited hook, line and sinker.

For the record, there is nothing in the screening SOP that warrants for anyone to remove clothing with the exception of outer wear such as sweaters, jackets, coats, etc. provided that the individual has other clothing underneath such as a blouse or similar appropriate attire. If any TSO instructs you to remove clothing such as a blouse or pants, DEMAND to see the supervisor and/or your airline representative immediately.

Perhaps I've been jaded by the nature of many comments made in this forum which are filled with hyperbole and exaggeration that IF one legitimate claim is made that I am prone to not believe it. And I find it extremely difficult that any checkpoint supervisor would allow such a thing to occur. However, the SOP has pretty specific language, so I'm prone to remain skeptical that this event ever occurred.

That's my two cents.

There are forum members whose opinions I disagree with but whose word carries a lot of credibility with me in spite of those disagreements. Had one of them made this claim, I would PM them to get this matter addressed.

This may have happened as described. But I'm still skeptical and think the lot of you have been baited hook, line and sinker.

For the record, there is nothing in the screening SOP that warrants for anyone to remove clothing with the exception of outer wear such as sweaters, jackets, coats, etc. provided that the individual has other clothing underneath such as a blouse or similar appropriate attire. If any TSO instructs you to remove clothing such as a blouse or pants, DEMAND to see the supervisor and/or your airline representative immediately.

Perhaps I've been jaded by the nature of many comments made in this forum which are filled with hyperbole and exaggeration that IF one legitimate claim is made that I am prone to not believe it. And I find it extremely difficult that any checkpoint supervisor would allow such a thing to occur. However, the SOP has pretty specific language, so I'm prone to remain skeptical that this event ever occurred.

That's my two cents.

So in other words you are still calling the OP a lier?

So in other words you are still calling the OP a lier?

I have a great money-making offer for you. Hell, if you're so willing to believe a complete stranger's comments posted on the internet for one thing, I might as well take advantage of that right now and cash in, right?

:D

I'm sorry, but you are absolutely and utterly incorrect.

Canada uses MMW, mostly for US bound flights. There is random selection of a small percentage of travellers via the mat. One big difference from TSA is that one is clearly offered a choice of the scan or a pat down. The second big difference is that the pat down is nothing like the current TSA pat down.

That is very far from 'all Canadians' being required to do a scan or the pat down.



I concur; I have been selected for the nude-o-scope en route from YYZ to I think LAX and was immediately given the option of either the scan or a pat down. There was a line up for the pat down, so I decided to get radiated. It's of course all ridiculous, and does nothing to make the skies safer. If they'd stop being so paranoid about being labelled as "profilers" etc and start looking for suspect behaviour instead things would work much better.

I have a great money-making offer for you. Hell, if you're so willing to believe a complete stranger's comments posted on the internet for one thing, I might as well take advantage of that right now and cash in, right?

:D

I am a stranger to you as you are to me and we are both commenting on the internet. I would rather that our default mode be trust rather than distrust, or at lease ambivalence.

I agreed with you earlier that I had questions concerning the story awaiting more details. We now have more details and the preponderance of the evidence is leaning toward the truthfulness of the OP.

I may be naive, but I prefer to assume that people tell the truth until the evidence convinces me that they are not truthful. I would rather be disappointed in the honestly of others on occasion than to live my life in distrust of everyone in which I come in contact.

Your default mode may be universal distrust as it is an important consideration in your job that everyone in which you come in contact must be considered untrustworthy to do your job under the current SOP. I understand that and I do not disparage it. I would also hope that you would learn that once the screening is complete you would realize that the vast majority of people are not being dishonest as a matter of course.

Now is probably as good as anytime for the OP to become aware of the fact that, if it wasn't on YouTube, it didn't happen. If she follows through on this, her experience in this thread will certainly not be the last time her word is called into question.

On the other hand, she will at least take away the knowledge that what happened in the room was not captured on a/v and that the people who did it to her were not law enforcement officers. Those are important pieces of information, not only for her, but for any traveler reading this thread.

I am a stranger to you as you are to me and we are both commenting on the internet. I would rather that our default mode be trust rather than distrust, or at lease ambivalence.

I agreed with you earlier that I had questions concerning the story awaiting more details. We now have more details and the preponderance of the evidence is leaning toward the truthfulness of the OP.

I may be naive, but I prefer to assume that people tell the truth until the evidence convinces me that they are not truthful. I would rather be disappointed in the honestly of others on occasion than to live my life in distrust of everyone in which I come in contact.

Your default mode may be universal distrust as it is an important consideration in your job that everyone in which you come in contact must be considered untrustworthy to do your job under the current SOP. I understand that and I do not disparage it. I would also hope that you would learn that once the screening is complete you would realize that the vast majority of people are not being dishonest as a matter of course.

As I said earlier, a lot of my skepticism comes from the nature of the comments made by forum members. But there's another reason: I cannot believe that something this outrageous could have occurred without it being reported or rumored. Because if it happened so "routinely" once, then it was likely to happen again. And if it happened again, then someone other than the OP would have most likely reacted the way other forum members have that this would have made it to the press or the internet.

The TSA "Rumornet" is pretty robust. Word gets around. Not only that, but TSA is pretty quick to issue clarification once it gets wind of an improper procedure. It's no different than the Army adage, "One person craps his pants and the whole division has to wear diapers." There simply isn't anything out on something like this happening at any TSA checkpoint. Not that this Rumornet is 100% reliable, but there's not even a peep.

So I still remain skeptical until I receive more substantial information from sources I trust.

There are forum members whose opinions I disagree with but whose word carries a lot of credibility with me in spite of those disagreements. Had one of them made this claim, I would PM them to get this matter addressed.

This may have happened as described. But I'm still skeptical and think the lot of you have been baited hook, line and sinker.

For the record, there is nothing in the screening SOP that warrants for anyone to remove clothing with the exception of outer wear such as sweaters, jackets, coats, etc. provided that the individual has other clothing underneath such as a blouse or similar appropriate attire. If any TSO instructs you to remove clothing such as a blouse or pants, DEMAND to see the supervisor and/or your airline representative immediately.

Perhaps I've been jaded by the nature of many comments made in this forum which are filled with hyperbole and exaggeration that IF one legitimate claim is made that I am prone to not believe it. And I find it extremely difficult that any checkpoint supervisor would allow such a thing to occur. However, the SOP has pretty specific language, so I'm prone to remain skeptical that this event ever occurred.

That's my two cents.
I would like to respond by indicating, generally speaking, those of the Travelling public who are paying attention are also seriously jaded by the multiple and ongoing factual based instances of TSOs stepping far outside the bounds of their SOP, whether to complete their interpretation of their duties or to complete clearly illegal acts against said traveling public. Regardless, my truth meter is stretched where I am forced to take the wildest of accusations and believe that the skybcan indeed turn colors, because many of those instances previously have been proved to be correct.

You seem like a good guy, and I applaud that. Unfortunately too many of your brethren have PROVEN to be lying, cheating, manipulating power hungry scum that doesn't deserve their paycheck or the opportunity to interface with the traveling public. We all have and are entitled to our perspective based on our experiences, but the shared ones are really running against you and your organization.

I would like to respond by indicating, generally speaking, those of the Travelling public who are paying attention are also seriously jaded by the multiple and ongoing factual based instances of TSOs stepping far outside the bounds of their SOP, whether to complete their interpretation of their duties or to complete clearly illegal acts against said traveling public. Regardless, my truth meter is stretched where I am forced to take the wildest of accusations and believe that the skybcan indeed turn colors, because many of those instances previously have been proved to be correct.

You seem like a good guy, and I applaud that. Unfortunately too many of your brethren have PROVEN to be lying, cheating, manipulating power hungry scum that doesn't deserve their paycheck or the opportunity to interface with the traveling public. We all have and are entitled to our perspective based on our experiences, but the shared ones are really running against you and your organization.

That's fair. I can accept that.

As I said earlier, a lot of my skepticism comes from the nature of the comments made by forum members. But there's another reason: I cannot believe that something this outrageous could have occurred without it being reported or rumored. Because if it happened so "routinely" once, then it was likely to happen again. And if it happened again, then someone other than the OP would have most likely reacted the way other forum members have that this would have made it to the press or the internet.


Respectfully, this is the same sort of skepticism to which rape victims were at one time routinely treated. And, many of them (for a lot of the same reasons a woman who has had the experience the OP describes) remained silent for a very long time as a result. Some will hold their private horror to themselves for a lifetime.

Respectfully, this is the same sort of skepticism to which rape victims were at one time routinely treated. And, many of them (for a lot of the same reasons a woman who has had the experience the OP describes) remained silent for a very long time as a result. Some will hold their private horror to themselves for a lifetime.

I understand that. However, I'm also talking about TSOs. For something like this to happen, especially on a regular basis (and if it happened once, it is likely to be regarded as "routine"), I am very confident that a female officer would blow the whistle, and that an investigation would have been launched.

What we're talking about here is something that is very clearly a violation of standard procedures. There is no way to rationalize, explain or otherwise justify such an action IF IT TOOK PLACE.

But, IF it did happen, then I certainly agree that this should be handled on the same level as a sexual attack.

I understand that. However, I'm also talking about TSOs. For something like this to happen, especially on a regular basis (and if it happened once, it is likely to be regarded as "routine"), I am very confident that a female officer would blow the whistle, and that an investigation would have been launched.

What we're talking about here is something that is very clearly a violation of standard procedures. There is no way to rationalize, explain or otherwise justify such an action IF IT TOOK PLACE.

But, IF it did happen, then I certainly agree that this should be handled on the same level as a sexual attack.
See - your confidence seems unshakeable - where as most of ours are in the toilet.

It's nice that you think so well of your fellow man, but when it comes to your organization, they are really showing us the worse of human nature on a quite frequent basis. On top of that, the culture within the organization doesn't freely allow anyone to blow the whistle anywhere, so I now get confused on why and how your confidence is so unshakeable. Quite honestly, that unshakeability is concerning to me because it means there might be blinders where a more open mind is needed with the requisite analytical review to really see what is going on - encouraged as standard or as a one-off.

This may have happened as described. But I'm still skeptical and think the lot of you have been baited hook, line and sinker.

For the record, there is nothing in the screening SOP that warrants for anyone to remove clothing with the exception of outer wear such as sweaters, jackets, coats, etc. provided that the individual has other clothing underneath such as a blouse or similar appropriate attire. If any TSO instructs you to remove clothing such as a blouse or pants, DEMAND to see the supervisor and/or your airline representative immediately.

Well, there's nothing about stripping down to skivvies in my copy of the unredacted screening manual either. :p

But, a screener in another forum, describing what happens when someone still alarms after an enhanced pat down, called it a grey area. What's in the grey area? SSI no doubt. But one thing we can be certain of is that policies and procedures can vary wildly. As one of your colleague's stated:

"Some airports so. Some airports don't. Each airport is different."

Some of the things that go to her credibility, for me, are...

- She is not new to FlyerTalk and certainly not an inexperienced traveler
- She really did not take exception to the strip search and, in fact, her words seem to suggest she thought was to be expected in her situation. It is more of a side story than her story. She came here looking for an explanation of the alarm, not an explanation of the strip search. The attention to the strip search is ours, and not hers.

Against that, stands...

-the SOP, which we are being told should have protected the OP from this. Many, many questions about the SOP's at the checkpoint remain unanswered, but here we have a flat-out statement that removing clothing in a private room while having the skin searched is an overstep.

The OP is handling it now, and I wish her well.

For the record, there is nothing in the screening SOP that warrants for anyone to remove clothing with the exception of outer wear such as sweaters, jackets, coats, etc. provided that the individual has other clothing underneath such as a blouse or similar appropriate attire.

Respectfully, this means nothing. SOP also states that my Nexus card is acceptable ID. Yet it is often refused.

The only thing consistent at your agency are the inconsistencies.

See - your confidence seems unshakeable - where as most of ours are in the toilet.

It's nice that you think so well of your fellow man, but when it comes to your organization, they are really showing us the worse of human nature on a quite frequent basis. On top of that, the culture within the organization doesn't freely allow anyone to blow the whistle anywhere, so I now get confused on why and how your confidence is so unshakeable. Quite honestly, that unshakeability is concerning to me because it means there might be blinders where a more open mind is needed with the requisite analytical review to really see what is going on - encouraged as standard or as a one-off.

I can't account for all TSOs across all of TSA. I only know the ones I work with at my airport. However, I have found that in working at other airports and with TSOs from other airports, there are a lot of similarities. Based on that, I know that female officers, particularly leads and supervisors, would not stand quietly by and allow such a blatant violation of SOP to occur without reporting it.

But we'll see in the near future. IF this did occur, and IF the OP takes action, then something will come down the pike, especially if any of this actually occurred.

Until then, I still remain skeptical that this happened as alleged.

Respectfully, this means nothing. SOP also states that my Nexus card is acceptable ID. Yet it is often refused.

The only thing consistent at your agency are the inconsistencies.

There's a huge difference between acceptable ID and requiring someone to remove a blouse. I don't expect all TSOs across the country to know what a Nexus card looks like. I agree with you that they should, but since the majority of IDs presented are drivers' licenses, I think that TSOs are probably better at spotting fake DLs.

But every TSO is trained in pat-down procedures and procedures used to resolve questionable areas.

And if it happened again, then someone other than the OP would have most likely reacted the way other forum members have that this would have made it to the press or the internet.
I disagree. The vast majority of the traveling public has an "anything for security" attitude. I think it's equally likely that somebody who had this happen to them would praise the TSO for being so thorough as would raise a stink with the press. Remember that the OP didn't see anything wrong with it and wouldn't have even posted it were it not part of a different question. I suspect that almost everybody this happened to would think it a normal part of security and not say anything. (And this, of course, is the problem with so much of SOP being SSI.)

As to your claim that the SOP never requires removal of clothing down to underwear, hasn't it been said a number of times that a woman wearing a skirt that's too tight to allow a pat-down has to remove it?

There's a huge difference between acceptable ID and requiring someone to remove a blouse.

How do feel about the difference between preventing someone from moving about the country because she failed to remove her blouse for an airport security guard and preventing someone from moving about the country because she failed to present documentation of her identity to an airport security guard?

Some of the things that go to her credibility, for me, are...

- She is not new to FlyerTalk and certainly not an inexperienced traveler
- She really did not take exception to the strip search and, in fact, her words seem to suggest she thought was to be expected in her situation. It is more of a side story than her story. She came here looking for an explanation of the alarm, not an explanation of the strip search. The attention to the strip search is ours, and not hers.
I agree. Somebody trying to bait would have presented it very differently. I believe this incident happened as stated.

I disagree. The vast majority of the traveling public has an "anything for security" attitude. I think it's equally likely that somebody who had this happen to them would praise the TSO for being so thorough as would raise a stink with the press. Remember that the OP didn't see anything wrong with it and wouldn't have even posted it were it not part of a different question. I suspect that almost everybody this happened to would think it a normal part of security and not say anything. (And this, of course, is the problem with so much of SOP being SSI.)

Takes two to tango. In this case, it would require two female TSOs plus a female supervisor to agree to this method. I find it very unlikely that two TSOs and a supervisor would be this ignorant of the SOP or would remain silent if they observed a blatant violation.

There's a huge difference between acceptable ID and requiring someone to remove a blouse. I don't expect all TSOs across the country to know what a Nexus card looks like. I agree with you that they should, but since the majority of IDs presented are drivers' licenses, I think that TSOs are probably better at spotting fake DLs.

But every TSO is trained in pat-down procedures and procedures used to resolve questionable areas.


Fair enough. I'll give you another example then.

How about not stealing from passengers? Do you deem that an important enough part of your vaunted SOP that every TSO across the country should be trained well enough to remember not to steal from us?

Fair enough. I'll give you another example then.

How about not stealing from passengers? Do you deem that an important enough part of your vaunted SOP that every TSO across the country should be trained well enough to remember not to steal from us?

TSA will be the first to take action is a TSO is caught stealing. TSA does not tolerate it nor protect those caught in the act from prosecution.

TSA will be the first to take action is a TSO is caught stealing. TSA does not tolerate it nor protect those caught in the act from prosecution.

Ah, yet it happens, n'est-ce pas?

The point is it doesn't matter what rules you put in your SOP if they are disregarded or not enforced on a daily basis in the field.

Your argument that this strip search could not have happened as posted because it is contrary to SOP just doesn't hold water.

Takes two to tango. In this case, it would require two female TSOs plus a female supervisor to agree to this method. I find it very unlikely that two TSOs and a supervisor would be this ignorant of the SOP or would remain silent if they observed a blatant violation.

Bart, at MSP I had a 3 striper (supervisor) tell me he would believe one of his people over a passenger. Found that strange because if the passenger was telling the truth and the TSO was lying (an occasional occurence) the passenger would lose. How about have the supervisory staff look at the facts before deciding on who to believe?

TSA will be the first to take action is a TSO is caught stealing. TSA does not tolerate it nor protect those caught in the act from prosecution.

And yet, a significant number of employees have had trouble remembering that theft is not part of their job.

The fact that employees aren't supposed to do something doesn't seem to prevent the TSA from having to issue frequent reminders to the press that the criminals in their midst in no way represent yadda-gadda-yadda.

And yet, a significant number of employees have had trouble remembering that theft is not part of their job.

The fact that employees aren't supposed to do something doesn't seem to prevent the TSA from having to issue frequent reminders to the press that the criminals in their midst in no way represent yadda-gadda-yadda.

Significant number? Theft by TSOs is not widespread as you may believe or would have everyone else believe. But it does happen. TSA takes action when it does.

Depending on which source you look at, employee theft is something that many enterprises, corporations and industries have to deal with. Or, to put it another way, there are very few, if any, enterprises, corporations and industries that are immune to employee theft. Employment screening can only go so far. The same privacy issues you and others obsess about in here also apply to prospective employees. Documented cases of prior convictions are easily identified and used to disqualify applicants. But whether or not someone without a previous conviction will actually steal is something that cannot be detected or predicted.

Look up the theft rate among bank tellers. You'll find that a very high percentage of them have stolen at least once, and another number has stolen on a repeated basis. Sources differ, but the one I read said 75% of bank tellers have stolen at least once and half of that number steal repeatedly.

The issue here is whether or not TSA screening procedures require a woman to remove her blouse in order to resolve an ETD alarm. They do not. This is a blatant violation of TSA policy.

The same applies with theft by TSA employees. TSA does not permit it, and TSA will take immediate action against the employee whenever it catches them.

Takes two to tango. In this case, it would require two female TSOs plus a female supervisor to agree to this method. I find it very unlikely that two TSOs and a supervisor would be this ignorant of the SOP or would remain silent if they observed a blatant violation.
So blatant abuse like with the guy traveling with a lot of cash whose butt was saved only bc he was taping the discussion on his iPhone. Not one of the many TSOs (or cops) involved came forward with the truth. Only his recording saved him. Tell me again how much you believe in your fellow workers, their ethics AND expectations of their behavior when something wrong is happening?

....
As to your claim that the SOP never requires removal of clothing down to underwear, hasn't it been said a number of times that a woman wearing a skirt that's too tight to allow a pat-down has to remove it?

^^^
Exactly. Bart is correct in that this *is* an allegation, to start with. But do not the procedures TSA has (private room genital search, no non TSA witness for many who endure this) lend itself well to precisely such abuses over and above the abuse of the search itself.

The takeaway should not be, "the OP might not be telling the truth". The takeaway should be, "how can we fix this so that this is not even a possibility". Sorry, but asking to trust in the integrity of random TSA agents or the efficacy of the TSA rumor mill is not a valid fix.

I may be naive, but I keep hoping that one day soon 'older woman drops pants and removes blouse' will be the equivalent of 'naked guy climbing into trunk of his car'. I can only hope.
It's sad, but I just don't see it happening.

There are plenty of possible reasons behind this attitude. Is it the decay of our educational system, which focuses on pushing as many children through as possible, regardless of what they learn - or that they develop the ability to learn at all?

Is it a media that constantly throbs with the notion that the only thing important is how good we feel at any moment in time? Not any conscious choice of how to live our lives or development of any sense of personal dignity?

Is it the evolution of a housing stock that stresses as little interaction with neighbors as possible, leading to a selfishly individualistic mindset of protecting our property from "others", rather than developing a community of mutual respect?

Could be any number of things. And maybe it's nothing; maybe it's always been this way.

But a good portion of our population, perhaps a majority, doesn't care about reality.

They don't have the cognitive skills to understand how to deal with an extremely rare threat. And they don't comprehend that, however rare abuse really is by TSOs, that it's far more frequent than an actual terrorist threat.

They don't have experience making a conscious choice for the purpose of protecting their own dignity. If you place little or no value on your own personal liberty and self-respect, you certainly won't put up any resistance to anything TSA wants to do. Why slow down the process of getting to the next "feel good" moment? Especially if you lack the logical reasoning and factual analysis skills to assess the efficacy of anything going on at the checkpoint.

I'm honestly starting to believe that if the TSA makes changes slowly enough, there is no limit - at all - to what the majority of Americans will (gladly) tolerate. And the real root causes are too hard to fix at this point.

^^^
The takeaway should not be, "the OP might not be telling the truth". The takeaway should be, "how can we fix this so that this is not even a possibility". Sorry, but asking to trust in the integrity of random TSA agents or the efficacy of the TSA rumor mill is not a valid fix.

Nor have I asked anyone else to rely on that. What I said is that I base my judgment on more than just one solitary claim in a message board. I was asked why I'm so skeptical, and I spelled it out. These things are usually corroborated by something else and there's absolutely NOTHING about this incident or ANYTHING resembling this incident.

There's no smoke.

As for fixing it so that it is not even a possibility, I don't know what you expect. It simply isn't procedure.

Ah, yet it happens, n'est-ce pas?

The point is it doesn't matter what rules you put in your SOP if they are disregarded or not enforced on a daily basis in the field.

Your argument that this strip search could not have happened as posted because it is contrary to SOP just doesn't hold water.

The common belief in this forum is that the strip search occurred because it is part of the SOP. I stated that it is not SOP.

Beyond that, I speculated that IF this incident happened, then it is highly unlikely that it would remain such a secret that the TSOs who did this would get away with it, especially more than once.

Theft, on the other hand, is something that can occur, given certain circumstances. Even then, a TSO who steals runs the risk of being reported by fellow TSOs. How do you think many of these investigations are initiated?

The issue here is whether or not TSA screening procedures require a woman to remove her blouse in order to resolve an ETD alarm. [/B] They do not. This is a blatant violation of TSA policy.

The same applies with theft by TSA employees. TSA does not permit it, and TSA will take immediate action against the employee whenever it catches them.

Actually Bart, the issue here was not SOP until you brought it up. This is about one incident and the circumstances surrounding it.

To that end, first you said it didn't happen at all:

There was no strip search, but I'm waiting for the OP to reply to the original question.

Then you suggested it was probably customs:

And this was TSA? Not Customs?

After that, you went back to it didn't happen:

I cannot believe that something this outrageous could have occurred without it being reported or rumored.

Then, you settled on it couldn't have happened because it is not SOP.

But every TSO is trained in pat-down procedures and procedures used to resolve questionable areas.

It seems to me, Bart, that the only "immediate action" that the TSA (read: you) have taken in this instance is to deny that it could have happened.

The common belief in this forum is that the strip search occurred because it is part of the SOP. I stated that it is not SOP.

Beyond that, I speculated that IF this incident happened, then it is highly unlikely that it would remain such a secret that the TSOs who did this would get away with it, especially more than once.

Theft, on the other hand, is something that can occur, given certain circumstances. Even then, a TSO who steals runs the risk of being reported by fellow TSOs. How do you think many of these investigations are initiated?
Again, there are plenty of non SOP behavior going on. You cannot possibly believe or admit otherwise. It is RARe to non existent that a TSO at any level is spilling the beans. How on earth can you sit back and say guilty (eg lying, not truthful) until proven otherwise by TSA who has been shown to be more full of sh*t than any latrine or a TSO who seem to be too stupid or scared to know any better, or tell any different

It seems to me, Bart, that the only "immediate action" that the TSA (read: you) have taken in this instance is to deny that it could have happened.

You know what, pal, I'm just another schmoe posting comments on the internet. Just because I work for TSA doesn't mean that my comments should be taken as an official position by the TSA. You have the right to believe what you want, as do I.

I am not so willing to believe the story and have explained repeatedly why. You don't have to accept that, but I don't understand why you think you have to convince me that I have to accept your belief. I don't understand why you and others can't simply acknowledge that we disagree and let it go at that.

By the way, do you believe in Jesus Christ as your personal savior? Do you believe that there's life on other planets? Do you believe in ghosts? Do you believe in Santa Claus? Do you believe that Bill Clinton never inhaled?

Again, there are plenty of non SOP behavior going on. You cannot possibly believe or admit otherwise. It is RARe to non existent that a TSO at any level is spilling the beans. How on earth can you sit back and say guilty (eg lying, not truthful) until proven otherwise by TSA who has been shown to be more full of sh*t than any latrine or a TSO who seem to be too stupid or scared to know any better, or tell any different

LOL. OK. If you say so.

:rolleyes:

Bart: Do you believe it is unlawful to photograph X-ray machine computer monitors at airport security checkpoints?

Bart is correct in that this *is* an allegation, to start with.
No, it wasn't an allegation, that's the whole point! Read the original post again. The way it was written, the OP assumed that a "strip search" is part of the normal procedure and wasn't "alleging" anything. She was asking a completely different question. It's only when those folks on this forum raised the issue and said "wait a minute: that's not supposed to happen!", that there was any sort of "allegation", but even then not from the OP, seems to only grudingly admit there was something wrong with it.

That's why this could easily have happened to dozens of people, all of whom saw no problem with it and thus didn't report it.

But I'm also waiting for Bart to address the issue of tight skirts to clarify his statement about precisely what clothing people can be required to remove. And that's the other problem here, because the SOP is secret, there's no way for people to know what's appropriate and what's not and so no way for most of the inappropriate behavior to be reported.

But I'm also waiting for Bart to address the issue of tight skirts to clarify his statement about precisely what clothing people can be required to remove. And that's the other problem here, because the SOP is secret, there's no way for people to know what's appropriate and what's not and so no way for most of the inappropriate behavior to be reported.
Not Bart, but from another TSO: (bolding mine)

I wondered when this would come up, If you wear a tight skirt and have been selected for whatever reason to have a standard pat down, you will be asked to change clothes into something that will allow the patdown OR you can go to private screening and don a paper drape and raise the skirt high enough to allow a standard patdown. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/travel-safety-security/1148940-tight-skirt-will-they-do-private-visual-search.html

For the record, there is nothing in the screening SOP that warrants for anyone to remove clothing with the exception of outer wear such as sweaters, jackets, coats, etc. provided that the individual has other clothing underneath such as a blouse or similar appropriate attire. If any TSO instructs you to remove clothing such as a blouse or pants, DEMAND to see the supervisor and/or your airline representative immediately.

Perhaps I've been jaded by the nature of many comments made in this forum which are filled with hyperbole and exaggeration that IF one legitimate claim is made that I am prone to not believe it. And I find it extremely difficult that any checkpoint supervisor would allow such a thing to occur. However, the SOP has pretty specific language, so I'm prone to remain skeptical that this event ever occurred.

That's my two cents.

That sounds pretty reasonable. I'd like to offer two comments:

1. (dead horse alert) Appeals to the SOP are absolutely worthless since it is super-secret information. If a TSO demands that I "bend over and spread 'em" he can claim that the SOP allows it and I am not allowed to see the SOP to confirm for myself. Even though you say "there is nothing in the screening SOP that warrants for anyone to remove clothing ..." I doubt you would be willing to back that claim up by publishing the relavent portion of the SOP. As long as the SOP remains secret the passenger is totally at the mercy of any rogue TSO at any time.

2. Personally, I too find it difficult to believe a supervisor would tolerate such behavior. However; I also find it hard to believe one would tolerate theft on a day to day basis. And yet hardly a week can go by without another news report of theft by TSOs, often with the connivence of supervisors. Although I can't read the super-secret SOP I would expect that it has nothing in it to warrant theft just as it supposedly has nothing to warrant strip searches. If we can accept the undeniable fact that there is widespread theft by TSOs, then surely we can accept that there are also other violations of the SOP.

Not Bart, but from another TSO: (bolding mine)

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/travel-safety-security/1148940-tight-skirt-will-they-do-private-visual-search.html

The SOP does not require a passenger to strip in front of a TSO under any circumstances. There is an alternative for women in tight skirts, but no woman is required to remove the skirt in the presence of a TSO nor is any passenger required to expose himself/herself to a TSO in order to clear security.

There may be nothing in the SOP about removing clothing, but many women, including me and I believe VelvetJones, have reported being ordered to remove the only item of clothing we were wearing on our upper bodies at the checkpoint, which would mean passing through the WTMD wearing only a bra on the upper body.

That is just one example of what may be SOP not being followed. A screener did appear here last year and said that she uses common sense and doesn't make women remove light weight cardigans, either. If I recall correctly, there was some dispute about this and she removed all her posts.

I can assure you that the reaction from the TSO when I refused to remove my only item of clothing was not pleasant (at least at SAT the female assist who was called did say that her male counterparts there were idiots and let me go without any further harassment)

Nor have I asked anyone else to rely on that. What I said is that I base my judgment on more than just one solitary claim in a message board. I was asked why I'm so skeptical, and I spelled it out. These things are usually corroborated by something else and there's absolutely NOTHING about this incident or ANYTHING resembling this incident.

There's no smoke.

As for fixing it so that it is not even a possibility, I don't know what you expect. It simply isn't procedure.

The real fix is for TSA to stop the procedures put in place in October of last year.

"Fixing it" means addressing the current situation where you have a private room and under duress have passengers submit to your procedures. The passengers do not know what the procedures and limits are and this makes them susceptible to whatever might be forced on them at that time when they are vulnerable and desperate to make their flight (see the legal definition of "duresss").

The SOP does not require a passenger to strip in front of a TSO under any circumstances. There is an alternative for women in tight skirts, but no woman is required to remove the skirt in the presence of a TSO nor is any passenger required to expose himself/herself to a TSO in order to clear security.

remove your clothes and put this towel over you so we can feel you up. We'll leave the room momentarily while you put the towel on.

that makes me feel soo much better.

That sounds pretty reasonable. I'd like to offer two comments:

1. (dead horse alert) Appeals to the SOP are absolutely worthless since it is super-secret information. If a TSO demands that I "bend over and spread 'em" he can claim that the SOP allows it and I am not allowed to see the SOP to confirm for myself. Even though you say "there is nothing in the screening SOP that warrants for anyone to remove clothing ..." I doubt you would be willing to back that claim up by publishing the relavent portion of the SOP. As long as the SOP remains secret the passenger is totally at the mercy of any rogue TSO at any time.

Simple truth is that I am not permitted to discuss SSI. If I do, then I face adverse actions which may include criminal prosecution. I don't know why some folks in here think I can reveal SSI, even under the anonymity of an online screen name. I cannot because I agreed in writing that I would not as one of the conditions of my employment. So I do the next best thing by using generalities.

2. Personally, I too find it difficult to believe a supervisor would tolerate such behavior. However; I also find it hard to believe one would tolerate theft on a day to day basis. And yet hardly a week can go by without another news report of theft by TSOs, often with the connivence of supervisors. Although I can't read the super-secret SOP I would expect that it has nothing in it to warrant theft just as it supposedly has nothing to warrant strip searches. If we can accept the undeniable fact that there is widespread theft by TSOs, then surely we can accept that there are also other violations of the SOP.

There isn't widespread theft. But there is theft. And each case that is reported is investigated by DHS investigators. Depending on the crime and a bunch of other factors that I'm sure one of our resident lawyers would love to chime in on, especially since I'm making the comment, the matter goes to trial and the TSO, if guilty, ends up in a whole lot of deep kimchi.

There are violations of the SOP. Anytime a TSO takes a shortcut, such as not fully explaining the screening process at the beginning, that TSO is deviating from the SOP. Do TSOs often skip advisements? Probably. Does that mean that these same TSOs will literally strip-search a passenger? No, not at all.

The real fix is for TSA to stop the procedures put in place in October of last year.

"Fixing it" means addressing the current situation where you have a private room and under duress have passengers submit to your procedures. The passengers do not know what the procedures and limits are and this makes them susceptible to whatever might be forced on them at that time when they are vulnerable and desperate to make their flight (see the legal definition of "duresss").

Yeah, and we could all sit down, hold hands, sing Kumbaya and terrorists would stop their attacks because we're all so full of love and kindness.

Hey, pal, you're addressing the wrong person on this. I work at the lower end of the ladder, not many rungs from the bottom one. Write your Congresscritter. Blasting away at me is a waste of your time...and mine.

There are forum members whose opinions I disagree with but whose word carries a lot of credibility with me in spite of those disagreements. Had one of them made this claim, I would PM them to get this matter addressed.

This may have happened as described. But I'm still skeptical and think the lot of you have been baited hook, line and sinker.

For the record, there is nothing in the screening SOP that warrants for anyone to remove clothing with the exception of outer wear such as sweaters, jackets, coats, etc. provided that the individual has other clothing underneath such as a blouse or similar appropriate attire. If any TSO instructs you to remove clothing such as a blouse or pants, DEMAND to see the supervisor and/or your airline representative immediately.

Perhaps I've been jaded by the nature of many comments made in this forum which are filled with hyperbole and exaggeration that IF one legitimate claim is made that I am prone to not believe it. And I find it extremely difficult that any checkpoint supervisor would allow such a thing to occur. However, the SOP has pretty specific language, so I'm prone to remain skeptical that this event ever occurred.

That's my two cents.

As far as what is or what is not in the screening SOP all I can do is point out Newark, Hawaii, Phoenix and other airports for you.

There's a huge difference between acceptable ID and requiring someone to remove a blouse. I don't expect all TSOs across the country to know what a Nexus card looks like. I agree with you that they should, but since the majority of IDs presented are drivers' licenses, I think that TSOs are probably better at spotting fake DLs.

But every TSO is trained in pat-down procedures and procedures used to resolve questionable areas.

If a TSA employee has been trained and signed off by the trainers to be qualified to act as a TDC is it not their responsibility to know all TSA accepted forms of ID?

TSA will be the first to take action is a TSO is caught stealing. TSA does not tolerate it nor protect those caught in the act from prosecution.

Not in FLL!

Significant number? Theft by TSOs is not widespread as you may believe or would have everyone else believe. But it does happen. TSA takes action when it does.

Depending on which source you look at, employee theft is something that many enterprises, corporations and industries have to deal with. Or, to put it another way, there are very few, if any, enterprises, corporations and industries that are immune to employee theft. Employment screening can only go so far. The same privacy issues you and others obsess about in here also apply to prospective employees. Documented cases of prior convictions are easily identified and used to disqualify applicants. But whether or not someone without a previous conviction will actually steal is something that cannot be detected or predicted.

Look up the theft rate among bank tellers. You'll find that a very high percentage of them have stolen at least once, and another number has stolen on a repeated basis. Sources differ, but the one I read said 75% of bank tellers have stolen at least once and half of that number steal repeatedly.

The issue here is whether or not TSA screening procedures require a woman to remove her blouse in order to resolve an ETD alarm. They do not. This is a blatant violation of TSA policy.

The same applies with theft by TSA employees. TSA does not permit it, and TSA will take immediate action against the employee whenever it catches them.

I would certainly like to see a reference to 75% of bank tellers steal.

Banks account for every penny of cash daily and controls are in place to uncover theft. Does theft happen? Certainly but when discovered, and it is always discovered in time, the employee is no longer working for the financial institution. Banking regulators would frown heavily on having a thief on the payroll.

Look up the theft rate among bank tellers. You'll find that a very high percentage of them have stolen at least once, and another number has stolen on a repeated basis. Sources differ, but the one I read said 75% of bank tellers have stolen at least once and half of that number

So if this was a bank security and safety forum would you be of the opinion that a customer who said she was robbed by a bank teller was making a credible accusation or would you be of the opinion that committing robbery is so far outside the teller's SOP that it was unlikely to be true?

I would certainly like to see a reference to 75% of bank tellers steal.

Banks account for every penny of cash daily and controls are in place to uncover theft. Does theft happen? Certainly but when discovered, and it is always discovered in time, the employee is no longer working for the financial institution. Banking regulators would frown heavily on having a thief on the payroll.
More importantly, the theft is against and covered by the organization, not left to the customer to carry the cost and result of the theft! furthermore, allegations are immediately investigated and again, not at the expense of the customers veracity as it is in the organizations best interest to immediately and stop the theftn... Comlare this to TSA with no accountability or responsibility. No comparison whatsoever!

Yeah, and we could all sit down, hold hands, sing Kumbaya and terrorists would stop their attacks because we're all so full of love and kindness.

Hey, pal, you're addressing the wrong person on this. I work at the lower end of the ladder, not many rungs from the bottom one. Write your Congresscritter. Blasting away at me is a waste of your time...and mine.

You asked how this situation (possible strip search at FAT) could be fixed. I responded. My response was not to your liking so it constituted "blasting"? P

The point is, situations such as was reported by the OP are bound to happen due to the physical process and the mental outlook of TSA workers, through their training, that steps past, over, and through, the normal boundaries that used to restrain improper conduct. Psychologically, once you're touching someone's genitals, it's a small progression to justify proceeding to the next step, removing clothing or considering the removal of clothing to be a reasonable search.

There are few if any safeguards against this for the passenger in that private room.

There isn't widespread theft. But there is theft. And each case that is reported is investigated by DHS investigators. Depending on the crime and a bunch of other factors that I'm sure one of our resident lawyers would love to chime in on, especially since I'm making the comment, the matter goes to trial and the TSO, if guilty, ends up in a whole lot of deep kimchi.



I appreciate your response. I am sure it is based on your own experiences. My attitude is based on my experience.

I was a victim of attempted theft by a TSO at BWI. I called for another screener and was able to finish the screening with all my belonings still in my possession. I reported the matter to the FSD at BWI by mail and by calling his office directly. Six years later, I'm still waiting for any sort of follow-up or even an acknowledgement that my complaint was received. We'll just have to agree to disagree about how serious TSA is concerning theft by employees.

So if this was a bank security and safety forum would you be of the opinion that a customer who said she was robbed by a bank teller was making a credible accusation or would you be of the opinion that committing robbery is so far outside the teller's SOP that it was unlikely to be true?

As opposed to being told to remove her blouse as part of the loan application procedure?

As opposed to being told to remove her blouse as part of the loan application procedure?

Sure, why not, it works just as well.

Would you be of the opinion that removing one's blouse as a condition of making a loan application is so far outside a bank officer's SOP that it was unlikely to be true?

Would you be of the opinion that removing one's blouse as a condition of making a loan application is so far outside a bank officer's SOP that it was unlikely to be true?

Given the number of documented deviations between the TSA's public statements and the actions of TSA employees, I'm not sure that what the SOP says has any relevance whatsoever.

Consider:

Fact: The TSA states (via Bloghdad Bob) that photography is not prohibited at the checkpoint.

Fact: Multiple videos have been posted to Youtube showing incontrovertible evidence that TSA employees harass camera operators at the checkpoint.

Fact: Bloghdad Bob has posted in response to those videos that the actions of the TSA employees were within standards.

Conclusion: The TSA does not publicly forbid photography at the checkpoint but (at least tacitly if not actively) supports the harassment of camera operators by TSA employees.

Whether or not the SOP says a particular thing is irrelevant - because we all know that the TSA's employees have been known to deviate (occasionally widely, and certainly criminally) from the SOP on a regular basis.

Sure, why not, it works just as well.

Would you be of the opinion that removing one's blouse as a condition of making a loan application is so far outside a bank officer's SOP that it was unlikely to be true?

I would say that removing one's blouse is NOT in the bank SOP. I would find it difficult to believe that the loan officer did this or that it was done on a regular basis by this and/or other loan officers. Especially since there are other bank employees in the immediate vicinity; I would find it difficult to believe that no one would have reported it.

As to whether or not it happened, I find it very unlikely that such an incident could occur unnoticed by others. There would at least be rumors of what happened, if not, at least an official inquiry.

Stranger things have happened. I won't deny that. But I'm not going to jump to any conclusions based solely on a post in FlyerTalk, especially in a forum that is decidedly anti-TSA. I'm inclined to believe that someone is baiting the issue.

Only the OP can clarify any of this by initiating an official complaint so that it can be investigated. If it did happen, then I hope all involved are punished. But I'm betting that it never happened and that this is something meant to inflame the highly anti-TSA sentiment resident here.

For clarity, then, passengers will not be asked to remove any clothing outside what is normally considered "outer clothing" (jackets, sweaters, vests) as any part of the TSA screening to enter the aircraft, correct? Being asked to remove a blouse, for instance, or being asked to remove a skirt or drop one's pants to knees/ankles...you are affirming these things are violations of TSA policy? Let's not play monkey-business with the language here, let's just have a straightforward response.

Is it not true that TSA has a well established history of trying out new "procedures" in "test markets" long before they go live with them systemwide? Many times in the past the SOP at one or two specific checkpoints was by design something that was definitely NOT SOP at the vast majority of other airports while TSA "evaluated effectiveness" (or gauged public acceptance of the latest indignity). I find the OP's account very credible. There are people here (perhaps myself included) who might tend to see the worst and nitpick the minutia of any negative encounter with TSA. I did not get that impression at all from the OP. In fact she didn't even post in this hornets nest where it was sure to stir up controversy. She posted very innocently in TravelBuzz and it was moved here by the mod's. I saw nothing but an apparently unbiased account from the OP. I find Bart very credible. I've never seen anything posted that I considered untrue from him, legitimate differences of opinion aside. I thought the question about Customs is legit because I wondered that myself before the OP addressed that more or less to my satisfaction. That was a fair question. However TSA as an organisation has zero credibility in my book, starting from the top. They have shown no bounds in pulling new stuff out of their hat that just makes my jaw drop and saw WTeF every time I turn around. Stuff a few years ago I would have called people wacko nut jobs for even suggesting the government was plotting has become routine SOP today. TSA may have some good people in their ranks but as an organisation they are doing some really crazy and really bad stuff out there in the name of 'security'. Given an apparently unbiased, credible account of TSA doing something bad from a person with no apparent axe to grind vs a credible defender of TSA who is none the less, not privy to the facts vs TSA as an organisation that has no credibility at all and an established history of doing bad things...... I'm inclined to believe TSA did a bad thing in this case and that the incident went down exactly as described.

It's sad, but I just don't see it happening.

There are plenty of possible reasons behind this attitude. Is it the decay of our educational system, which focuses on pushing as many children through as possible, regardless of what they learn - or that they develop the ability to learn at all?

Is it a media that constantly throbs with the notion that the only thing important is how good we feel at any moment in time? Not any conscious choice of how to live our lives or development of any sense of personal dignity?

Is it the evolution of a housing stock that stresses as little interaction with neighbors as possible, leading to a selfishly individualistic mindset of protecting our property from "others", rather than developing a community of mutual respect?

Could be any number of things. And maybe it's nothing; maybe it's always been this way.

But a good portion of our population, perhaps a majority, doesn't care about reality.

They don't have the cognitive skills to understand how to deal with an extremely rare threat. And they don't comprehend that, however rare abuse really is by TSOs, that it's far more frequent than an actual terrorist threat.

They don't have experience making a conscious choice for the purpose of protecting their own dignity. If you place little or no value on your own personal liberty and self-respect, you certainly won't put up any resistance to anything TSA wants to do. Why slow down the process of getting to the next "feel good" moment? Especially if you lack the logical reasoning and factual analysis skills to assess the efficacy of anything going on at the checkpoint.

I'm honestly starting to believe that if the TSA makes changes slowly enough, there is no limit - at all - to what the majority of Americans will (gladly) tolerate. And the real root causes are too hard to fix at this point.

Perhaps TSO's taught by TSA.. to respect their elders? and not conduct patdown/strip searches all that often..

To clarify my experiences.. we've never received nude-o-scope screenings at a US airport.. its only after clearing customs YYC as we're passing through security that at Spring Break everyone was passing through..

But glad to know that they are just doing random nude-o-scoping.. and giving those who are randomly chosen the choice of a pat down..

As far as CATSA or TSA.. I have no clue.. and please don't quote me as knowing or asserting anything.. All I know was that the nude-o-scoping was happening at a Canadian Airport (particularly YYC in my experience) at security after passing through US immigration/customs.. for US bound flights..

I will have to ask my 5 year old's Kindergarten teacher.. as she was on the same flight as ours YYC-HOU.. whether she chose the nude-o-scope of patdown?.. and her accompanying daughter and 3 grandchildren.. what happened as well.

One of my closest friends just posted on Facebook 20 minutes ago that she was strip-searched by TSA at LAX airport. I called her immediately and got the full story. She had been delayed six days leaving Australia because of the volcanoes, and when she landed at LAX she had a string of flight delays and cancellations. She has been at LAX for over 12 hours and had boarding passes for a number of flights which were either overbooked or cancelled. She is a smoker, and she exited the secure area to smoke several times over the course of the day. The last time that she came through the checkpoint, TSA recognized that she had gone through security several times already and flagged her for a strip search. She says she was taken into a private room and had to take off all of her clothing down to her underwear. Her underwear stayed on.

Luckily, she seems remarkably nonchalant about the whole experience, but I am shaken. I'm urging her to file a lawsuit, but I don't know how I can convince her how sickeningly wrong what they did to her is. I know I'm going to have trouble sleeping tonight. What kind of loathsome disgusting people would do this to someone? Shame on you, TSA. Shame on your whole obscene coterie of sexual abusers.

Perhaps TSO's taught by TSA.. to respect their elders? and not conduct patdown/strip searches all that often..

To clarify my experiences.. we've never received nude-o-scope screenings at a US airport.. its only after clearing customs YYC as we're passing through security that at Spring Break everyone was passing through..

But glad to know that they are just doing random nude-o-scoping.. and giving those who are randomly chosen the choice of a pat down..

As far as CATSA or TSA.. I have no clue.. and please don't quote me as knowing or asserting anything.. All I know was that the nude-o-scoping was happening at a Canadian Airport (particularly YYC in my experience) at security after passing through US immigration/customs.. for US bound flights..

I will have to ask my 5 year old's Kindergarten teacher.. as she was on the same flight as ours YYC-HOU.. whether she chose the nude-o-scope of patdown?.. and her accompanying daughter and 3 grandchildren.. what happened as well.

Let me try again... perhaps someone with better English skills than I can assist, even if this is OT for this thread.

YYC has had MMW for quite some time, due to pressure from the US, in the US departures area. You step on a randomizer mat when you present your boarding pass. The randomizer gives a number or uses an arrow to tell the CATSA agent if you have been selected or not. Generally the percentage of people selected for additional screening is quite low. I have never seen ALL passengers selected at a Canadian airport and frankly the checkpoints are not set up for that.

IF you are selected (and it usually is not an entire family at one time), you are clearly given the choice of a pat down or a scan. The pat down is nothing near the US version, although YYC is generally viewed as one of the worst CATSA locations in Canada. Several of us have had challenges there with screeners.

Why have you not been chosen for a scan in the US? Not every airport or every checkpoint has a scanner in the US. If you fly twice a year from MCO, you haven't encountered a scanner because MCO has only recently received scanners, and only at certain checkpoints and thus only for certain carriers.

MCO is seen by many of us here as one of the worst airports in the US overall for security experience. However you as an infrequent, uneducated (in the ways of airport security), family traveller are exactly why MCO becomes a challenge for the other type of traveller. You may enjoy your experience because MCO tends to cater more towards that type of traveller than to me for instance.

There are many posters on TS&S who have never been selected for a scan even though they travel weekly. They know which airports and terminals and checkpoints have scanners, they plan ahead, they select their line carefully, etc.

I would far rather have the Canadian experience than the US experience when it comes to security screening.

Again, apologies to the OP for going off topic, but this misinformation keeps coming up in this thread.

I would certainly like to see a reference to 75% of bank tellers steal.

He said "Sources diffeer, but the one I've read..." You want more than that? :)

I'm tempted to post here that 98% of all TSOs have been caught stealing on the job, so everyone here can quote that as "Sources differ, but the one I've read..."

I would far rather have the Canadian experience than the US experience when it comes to security screening.

It's just one person, and we know how much anecdotes are worth, but the only time I've been hassled at any point in the check-in/security/immigration/customs process in a Canadian airport is when I've been travelling to the US. Something I'm going to attempt to do by train (fly to Montreal, train to New York) the next time I have to.

Perhaps TSO's taught by TSA.. to respect their elders? and not conduct patdown/strip searches all that often..
I'm not sure why you responded to my post... but since you did...

I have personally witnessed the elderly being patted down without hesitation.

The most recent time, it was a woman who appeared to be about 70 years old, wearing a scarrrrrrrry skirt through the checkpoint. Even without an alarm from the WTMD, she still got frisked.

No one is exempt. And because there is not a publicly available procedure, anything goes. There's no way to know if it's out of bounds. Even when we think we know, it later turns out to be simply a test of something new.

I recall reading that you are an infrequent traveler. That you have not (or rarely have) seen it is a function of how infrequently you are in airports that rely heavily on body scanners.

For example, places like RDU (and, frequently, hubs like O'Hare) scan every single person when they can keep up. And regardless of age, if the TSO viewing the scan thinks he sees an anomaly, there will be a pat-down.

Each of us has a choice to care or not care. However, the belief that these things do not routinely occur, to travelers young and old, is patently absurd.

Nor have I asked anyone else to rely on that. What I said is that I base my judgment on more than just one solitary claim in a message board. I was asked why I'm so skeptical, and I spelled it out. These things are usually corroborated by something else and there's absolutely NOTHING about this incident or ANYTHING resembling this incident.

There's no smoke.

As for fixing it so that it is not even a possibility, I don't know what you expect. It simply isn't procedure.


Bart, it's good of you to clarify and to discuss the SOP, so I hope you'll overlook the above reference to one of the older post.

I bolded the relevant part. The OP was in a private room without video or audio recording, and without any independent witness, and without anyone to represent her. I suppose their are tapes of her entering the room, but the only evidence that might back her up are the people who may be at fault.

They aren't going to raise their voice.

That points out a problem besides the TSA keeping the SOP under administrative wraps. The problem is that in that private room their is not accountability IF the traveler does not have a witness. Because most travel alone, and the TSA does not recommend a witness to the traveler, and the airlines are not willing to provide witnesses, and other factors, it is unlikely that the traveler will have a witness.

The room is ripe for abuse. But that's how TSA designed their system to work.

I have to ask "why"? Why did TSA design their system with the only control being "two employees"? And how can the presence of a second employee ever be considered sufficient for that situation?

(I know you did not design that horrible system, so this isn't a reference to you). Either TSA purposefully designed their system to be abused, or they are incompetent. Which is it?

Bart, it's good of you to clarify and to discuss the SOP, so I hope you'll overlook the above reference to one of the older post.

I bolded the relevant part. The OP was in a private room without video or audio recording, and without any independent witness, and without anyone to represent her. I suppose their are tapes of her entering the room, but the only evidence that might back her up are the people who may be at fault.

They aren't going to raise their voice.

That points out a problem besides the TSA keeping the SOP under administrative wraps. The problem is that in that private room their is not accountability IF the traveler does not have a witness. Because most travel alone, and the TSA does not recommend a witness to the traveler, and the airlines are not willing to provide witnesses, and other factors, it is unlikely that the traveler will have a witness.

The room is ripe for abuse. But that's how TSA designed their system to work.

I have to ask "why"? Why did TSA design their system with the only control being "two employees"? And how can the presence of a second employee ever be considered sufficient for that situation?

(I know you did not design that horrible system, so this isn't a reference to you). Either TSA purposefully designed their system to be abused, or they are incompetent. Which is it?

Even if the victim had a witness of his/her choosing, there are some who would still deny that it ever happened the way it was reported.

With two reports in one week of women being strip searched, it would seem as if TSA is expanding this sordid activity.

The room is ripe for abuse. But that's how TSA designed their system to work.

I have to ask "why"? Why did TSA design their system with the only control being "two employees"? And how can the presence of a second employee ever be considered sufficient for that situation?

(I know you did not design that horrible system, so this isn't a reference to you). Either TSA purposefully designed their system to be abused, or they are incompetent. Which is it?

The passenger has the right to also have a witness in the room. This witness can be a spouse, traveling companion, or airline representative. The only requirement is that the witness must have already been screened and be reasonably available. (I don't know how LEOs fall in this category since they have to be available for anything that happens on the floor, so I won't address it.)

The problem with having an airline representative available is that you have to wait until that person is summoned and makes his or her way to the checkpoint. However, in many situations, having the spouse as a witness is not unreasonable. Can get a little crowded, depending on the size of the private screening room, but that's TSA's problem to deal with not the passenger. (Under certain situations, TSA would HAVE TO accommodate a spouse if there's a cultural or religious concern about a wife being patted down.)

There's nothing secret about what I just shared with you. I hope it helps alleviate any concerns about abuse.

The passenger has the right to also have a witness in the room.

There's nothing secret about what I just shared with you. I hope it helps alleviate any concerns about abuse.

Are TSO required to tell passengers about this right at the time?

Is this information available on the TSA website?

I have to ask "why"? Why did TSA design their system with the only control being "two employees"? And how can the presence of a second employee ever be considered sufficient for that situation?

Obviously, it's because the second employee provides the TSA with the illusion of accountability as well as plausible deniability.

You need to remember that the TSA isn't about "security" or "results." It's about the illusion of security while getting as much buck for the bang as possible.

It's also possible (if not probable) that the new strip searches being complained about are part of a new program for which Bart simply hasn't gotten the memo yet. We're all well aware of the internal communications problems within the TSA, especially as concerns changes in policy or procedure.

The passenger has the right to also have a witness in the room. This witness can be a spouse, traveling companion, or airline representative. The only requirement is that the witness must have already been screened and be reasonably available. (I don't know how LEOs fall in this category since they have to be available for anything that happens on the floor, so I won't address it.)

The problem with having an airline representative available is that you have to wait until that person is summoned and makes his or her way to the checkpoint. However, in many situations, having the spouse as a witness is not unreasonable. Can get a little crowded, depending on the size of the private screening room, but that's TSA's problem to deal with not the passenger. (Under certain situations, TSA would HAVE TO accommodate a spouse if there's a cultural or religious concern about a wife being patted down.)

There's nothing secret about what I just shared with you. I hope it helps alleviate any concerns about abuse.

What you've shared only heightens the concern. Many passengers travel without their spouse, and without a traveling companion. They are alone on their journey. There is no one with them, and no one to witness, whom they have a reasonable basis to trust.

That's the problem with the design -- it isolates the traveler and puts the traveler totally under the TSA's control, where the rules are hidden (e.g. SSI) and rights subjective (e.g. you can photograph the checkpoint, but we will block the lens).

If the truth be known, it's that the second TSA person in the room is there for the protection of the first TSA employee. They are not in the room to protect the passenger. They can lie for each other, to the passenger's detriment, and the passenger can't do anything about it.

But that's how TSA designed it.

I'll answer the original question I posed to you this way: I don't believe that the TSA designers are incompetent. Quite the contrary, I believe they are very competent, and they designed their procedures this way for a distinct and well thought out purpose. The reason is that if abuse happens, there is no corroboration, none at all. Few will believe the passenger.

That's why the design is so open to abuse.

I am aware of no basis in law that authorizes TSA to detain you in a private room. Moreover, courts have expressly held that the rationale for the airport administrative search is that they are conducted in public and therefore not likely to result in abuse.

If, as Bart contends, strip searches are not part of the resolution process, then there should be no reason for the resolution search to be conducted in private. I am not providing legal advice to anyone. I am, however, saying that, should I ever be required to submit to a resolution search, I will refuse to go to a private room and will insist that it be conducted in public.

If, as Bart contends, strip searches are not part of the resolution process, then there should be no reason for the resolution search to be conducted in private.

EXACTLY. The fact that TSA feels a need to hide their actions from public view is evidence enough that they know what they are doing is wrong.

The OP has learned that what happened is not in accordance with SOP and has been given some suggested contacts. OP has stated they will not comment further and I suspect that is an excellent position to take.

I think it is good that we have a TSA employee (claimed) that has clearly stated that what was done (as described by the OP) is not in accordance with TSA policy and will make an excellent witness against TSA should legal action result from this incident.

Resolution pat downs are done in the private screening room. The only other choice is to not fly.

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/travel-safety-security/1204307-my-first-pat-down.html#post16199749

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/travel-safety-security/1204307-my-first-pat-down.html#post16199749As I've mentioned before, I'm a lawyer, and I'm willing to press the unconstitutional aspects of the TSA administrative search in court when the right situation arises. I would consider being required to go into a private room for a search or else not fly as, "the right situation." The courts have been quite clear about why an administrative search must be conducted in public as a safeguard against abuse.

I wouldn't recommend that anyone else pursue the court option -- it's expensive and takes a long time. As a lawyer, it costs me nothing except time and the filing fees.

I am aware of no basis in law that authorizes TSA to detain you in a private room. Moreover, courts have expressly held that the rationale for the airport administrative search is that they are conducted in public and therefore not likely to result in abuse.

If, as Bart contends, strip searches are not part of the resolution process, then there should be no reason for the resolution search to be conducted in private. I am not providing legal advice to anyone. I am, however, saying that, should I ever be required to submit to a resolution search, I will refuse to go to a private room and will insist that it be conducted in public.

And you have said before (correct me if I'm wrong) that you are prepared for one possible result beyond not flying that day-- the possibility of an LEO bundling you off to jail.

If this is the case, might it be worthwhile for a traveler to consult with an appropriate attorney beforehand so the plan of action is understood and the appropriate action launched as soon as this happened (ie, jailing). That could help fortify the resolve of individual pax..

And you have said before (correct me if I'm wrong) that you are prepared for one possible result beyond not flying that day-- the possibility of an LEO bundling you off to jail.

If this is the case, might it be worthwhile for a traveler to consult with an appropriate attorney beforehand so the plan of action is understood and the appropriate action launched as soon as this happened (ie, jailing). That could help fortify the resolve of individual pax..I wouldn't recommend that any passenger undertake this risk. Look at Phil (who, by the way, has my admiration and respect). It's cost him many thousands of dollars just to defeat his false arrest at the trial court level.

I'm willing to do this because I won't have to hire a lawyer.

As I've mentioned before, I'm a lawyer, and I'm willing to press the unconstitutional aspects of the TSA administrative search in court when the right situation arises. I would consider being required to go into a private room for a search or else not fly as, "the right situation." The courts have been quite clear about why an administrative search must be conducted in public as a safeguard against abuse.

I wouldn't recommend that anyone else pursue the court option -- it's expensive and takes a long time. As a lawyer, it costs me nothing except time and the filing fees.

Thanks to Ellie M. who cited Hartwell in the Texas legislation thread:

In addition to being tailored to protect personal privacy, other factors make airport screening procedures minimally intrusive in comparison to other kinds of searches. Since every air passenger is subjected to a search, there is virtually no "stigma attached to being subjected to search at a known, designated airport search point." See United States v. Skipwith, 482 F.2d 1272, 1275 (5th Cir.1973). Moreover, the possibility for abuse is minimized by the public nature of the search. "Unlike searches conducted on dark and lonely streets at night where often the officer and the subject are the only witnesses, these searches are made under supervision and not far from the scrutiny of the traveling public."

http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/043841p.pdf

There certainly is a stigma attached to being hauled off to a private room. As a matter of fact, there is a stigma attached to enhanced patdowns.

Thanks to Ellie who cited Hartwell in the Texas legislation thread:



http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/043841p.pdf

There certainly is a stigma attached to being hauled off to a private room. As a matter of fact, there is a stigma attached to enhanced patdowns.
With the stretch they are defining anything TSA, they will say the room nearby is sufficient for "not far" from the traveling public.

TSA will be the first to take action is a TSO is caught stealing. TSA does not tolerate it nor protect those caught in the act from prosecution.

Oh? They seem awfully tolerant of camera failures when the tapes would show is the TSO at fault.

Yeah, and we could all sit down, hold hands, sing Kumbaya and terrorists would stop their attacks because we're all so full of love and kindness.

Hey, pal, you're addressing the wrong person on this. I work at the lower end of the ladder, not many rungs from the bottom one. Write your Congresscritter. Blasting away at me is a waste of your time...and mine.

No pal, you are the right person to blast. You and your ilk are enablers. If you and every TSO refused to follow these orders there would be no patdowns and molestations. The TSA can make all of the rules they want, if there is no one to follow them then they don't mean squat.

The SOP does not require a passenger to strip in front of a TSO under any circumstances. There is an alternative for women in tight skirts, but no woman is required to remove the skirt in the presence of a TSO nor is any passenger required to expose himself/herself to a TSO in order to clear security.

What about body piercings that don't readily come off? There have been reports of such problems.

Yeah, and we could all sit down, hold hands, sing Kumbaya and terrorists would stop their attacks because we're all so full of love and kindness.

Hey, pal, you're addressing the wrong person on this. I work at the lower end of the ladder, not many rungs from the bottom one. Write your Congresscritter. Blasting away at me is a waste of your time...and mine.

The TSA isn't about terrorism--your score against them is zero and the proposed improvements won't help.

You're really just a way of catching drug couriers masquerading as security to avoid the constitutional problems with your true mission.

The SOP does not require a passenger to strip in front of a TSO under any circumstances. There is an alternative for women in tight skirts, but no woman is required to remove the skirt in the presence of a TSO nor is any passenger required to expose himself/herself to a TSO in order to clear security.

The removing of a skirt in front of another person is (to me nothing) It is what they do AFTER you remove the skirt.

Touching your privates. And in some cases chopping.

And that is discusting and wrong and criminal.

What about body piercings that don't readily come off? There have been reports of such problems.

Why would they need to come off? I'm aware that some people have been asked to do so, but I have no idea why. :confused:

Nor can I imagine why a woman in a tight skirt would need an alternative. After all, there isn't going to be touching of genitals, there will only be "meeting resistance." :rolleyes:

I wouldn't recommend that any passenger undertake this risk. Look at Phil (who, by the way, has my admiration and respect). It's cost him many thousands of dollars just to defeat his false arrest at the trial court level.

I'm willing to do this because I won't have to hire a lawyer.

Since you are a laywer I am going to ask you this question.

I refuse and I mean totally refuse being groped and chopped by a stranger.

What happens if I get selected and strip down? And I mean striped down. Like in naked.
I really have a problem being touched by anybody without my consent.

Why would they need to come off? I'm aware that some people have been asked to do so, but I have no idea why. :confused:

Nor can I imagine why a woman in a tight skirt would need an alternative. After all, there isn't going to be touching of genitals, there will only be "meeting resistance." :rolleyes:

And that means on a woman TOUCHING GENITALS.
Doesnt TSA?TSO know that?

Why would they need to come off? I'm aware that some people have been asked to do so, but I have no idea why. :confused:

Nor can I imagine why a woman in a tight skirt would need an alternative. After all, there isn't going to be touching of genitals, there will only be "meeting resistance." :rolleyes:

To resolve whether the metal detected is a weapon or not.

And that means on a woman TOUCHING GENITALS.
Doesnt TSA?TSO know that?

I can't speak to what the screeners do/do not know about anatomy. But, if I ran my hand up a man's thigh until I met resistance and didn't touch his genitals in the process, I think most men would be a) disappointed and b) looking to exact revenge on whoever took their testicles.

To resolve whether the metal detected is a weapon or not.

If a TSO cannot tell on sight if a 6 gauge metal nipple ring is a weapon or not, that person has no business working security on any level, anywhere, at any time, for any reason.

Since you are a laywer I am going to ask you this question.

I refuse and I mean totally refuse being groped and chopped by a stranger.

What happens if I get selected and strip down? And I mean striped down. Like in naked.
I really have a problem being touched by anybody without my consent.

Not a lawyer and will defer to PTravel on the legal position, but other threads here have suggested that you will be told to put your clothes back on so you can be patted down.

You may also end up getting yourself arrested for indecent exposure/public nuisance/etc., depending on what state/country you're in.

Not a lawyer and will defer to PTravel on the legal position, but other threads here have suggested that you will be told to put your clothes back on so you can be patted down.

You may also end up getting yourself arrested for indecent exposure/public nuisance/etc., depending on what state/country you're in.

I know all that. I am asking more like legal.
I am in Los Angles.
I am swedish.
Now that anyone would try to touch without getting some kind of legal thing back from me.

And since they now strip people down to their undies. Nothing would really cover me anyway.
It would be like being naked.

And also they can try the indicent exposure all they want with me.
i do the no consent /touching and preverted thing with me.

A fine! Not for me. my bank is in Sweden.

And you have said before (correct me if I'm wrong) that you are prepared for one possible result beyond not flying that day-- the possibility of an LEO bundling you off to jail.

If this is the case, might it be worthwhile for a traveler to consult with an appropriate attorney beforehand so the plan of action is understood and the appropriate action launched as soon as this happened (ie, jailing). That could help fortify the resolve of individual pax..

I do not believe for refusing a resolute pat down you can be arrested.

The TSA has absolutely no law enforcement powers and basically they can threaten you with an administrative fine of $11.000, which we all know here is totally BS and deny you passage through the checkpoint, basically you won’t be flying that day.

Mr. Elliott

There certainly is a stigma attached to being hauled off to a private room. As a matter of fact, there is a stigma attached to enhanced patdowns.

Which starts with the deliberate attempts at humiliation by having the tin-badged twerp squawk "OPT-OUT! OPT-OUT! I HAVE AN OPT-OUT HERE!" like a demented toucan...

I do not believe for refusing a resolute pat down you can be arrested.

The TSA has absolutely no law enforcement powers and basically they can threaten you with an administrative fine of $11.000, which we all know here is totally BS and deny you passage through the checkpoint, basically you won’t be flying that day.

Mr. Elliott
However, the airport police have become complicit in the illegal acts of the TSA, and play the law enforcement heavy all too often in an inappropriate manner

However, the airport police have become complicit in the illegal acts of the TSA, and play the law enforcement heavy all too often in an inappropriate manner

And in that case their law enforcement agency becomes libel for their actions.

While it is very difficult, but not impossible to sue the TSA, it is open season on local law enforcement agencies, because they are not protected by sovereign immunity like federal agencies are.

As far as I know, and I am not a lawyer, but an LEO can only arrest someone at the checkpoint for violating state and federal laws for carrying contraband or acting disorderly which are all criminal charges, but refusing to go through a resolute pat down is not a criminal charge, all the TSA can do is deny you passage through the checkpoint and threaten you till they are blue in the face with $11.000 fines for interfering with the screening process.

The LEO’s can use their bully pulpit tactics all day on you, there are numerous videos on YouTube showing this, but if you can stand your ground, their hands are tied. If they persist, I would immediately ask for one of their supervisors.

LEO’s know their laws and what they can and cannot do, and their laws are public information, unlike TSA screeners who refuse to show you their rules, and in some cases make up rules on the spot, so unless you get a real power hungry LEO, just stand your ground.

John Tyner did exactly that and there was nothing the TSA could do about it, and the LEO’s just stood there and watched him put the TSA in their place. Yes he did not fly that day, but that was all the TSA could do to him, and interestingly they never fined him 1 dollar, because the TSA knows real well they would lose in court any appeal of the fine and in all probability the courts would throw out the $11.000 fine for interfering with the screening process, taking away their only real threat they have.

My position is I will not refuse any resolute pat down, but I fear for my own safety, which is a legitimate concern and I don’t think any court would disagree there and for that reason only I will not go into a private room. I will demand my resolute pat down be done under video surveillance in public. That not only protects me from any abuse by TSA screeners, but protects the screeners as well from any false accusations from me, and again I don’t think any court will disagree with that argument as well.

So the decision is do you want to fly that day or not, if so, then you are at the mercy of the TSA because they are in charge of the checkpoint.

Mr. Elliott

Sounds great until you get a lying cop like Phil Mocek did, and end up in jail anyway with trumped up charges and thousands of dollars in legal fees .... :mad:

TSA will be the first to take action is a TSO is caught stealing. TSA does not tolerate it nor protect those caught in the act from prosecution.
Key word is "caught." Yeah, once they've caught stealing, TSA steps right up.

But what about "accused" of stealing? "Reports of theft?" Let's look at IAH according to the Examiner (http://www.examiner.com/page-one-in-houston/another-tsa-airport-screener-accused-of-stealing-after-checkpoint-sting)

Undercover officers organized a sting operation after passengers kept reporting things missing from their bags at Terminal B of Intercontinental Airport.

Airport police say the complaints always involved the checkpoint where 49-year-old Karla Renee Morgan was working, so she became their prime suspect.

...

In August 2003, another TSA screener was arrested for 2 rip-offs at Intercontinental Airport and hundreds of other items have been reported stolen while TSA had custody of the bags.

Taxpayer money is being spent to pay many of the claims filed with TSA, with the agency admitting the items were stolen on its watch.

In many claims, TSA turns down the claim and responds that there is not enough evidence that the agency was responsible for a payment to be made.

Yeah, sounds like TSA is real proactive about responding to those claims. :rolleyes:

Let me try again... perhaps someone with better English skills than I can assist, even if this is OT for this thread.

YYC has had MMW for quite some time, due to pressure from the US, in the US departures area. You step on a randomizer mat when you present your boarding pass. The randomizer gives a number or uses an arrow to tell the CATSA agent if you have been selected or not. Generally the percentage of people selected for additional screening is quite low. I have never seen ALL passengers selected at a Canadian airport and frankly the checkpoints are not set up for that.

IF you are selected (and it usually is not an entire family at one time), you are clearly given the choice of a pat down or a scan. The pat down is nothing near the US version, although YYC is generally viewed as one of the worst CATSA locations in Canada. Several of us have had challenges there with screeners.

Why have you not been chosen for a scan in the US? Not every airport or every checkpoint has a scanner in the US. If you fly twice a year from MCO, you haven't encountered a scanner because MCO has only recently received scanners, and only at certain checkpoints and thus only for certain carriers.

MCO is seen by many of us here as one of the worst airports in the US overall for security experience. However you as an infrequent, uneducated (in the ways of airport security), family traveller are exactly why MCO becomes a challenge for the other type of traveller. You may enjoy your experience because MCO tends to cater more towards that type of traveller than to me for instance.

There are many posters on TS&S who have never been selected for a scan even though they travel weekly. They know which airports and terminals and checkpoints have scanners, they plan ahead, they select their line carefully, etc.

I would far rather have the Canadian experience than the US experience when it comes to security screening.

Again, apologies to the OP for going off topic, but this misinformation keeps coming up in this thread.

I would ask that you reread my threads again, because you are misreading my posts..

First of all.. I've never said that I travel to MCO twice a year.. I'm not sure where that came from..

Second of all.. IME during spring break.. All passengers going through immigration/customs that were Canadian was scanned through the Nude-O-Scope at YYC or given an option of a pat down.. Now it was only during that period.. and I have mentioned in my numerous posts that this may have changed.. Although, you seem to be going back to my language and misquoting me..

Third of all.. If they have changed to a random policy (which I've already mentioned a couple of times), then I'm very happy they did so.. so, I'm not saying that the policy is current to check every person.. and yes, IME everything is anecdotal.. and yes every passenger except for children was being scanned under the Nude-O-Scope when we were there (YYC after US customs/immigration)..

Fourth of all.. You say that I'm uneducated when it comes to security issues.. well, I was well educated enough ahead of the Nude-O-Scopes during spring break to understand that EVERYONE would be scanned under the Nude-O-Scope during that time at YYC.. and everyone was indeed scanned when I was there.. with the exception of children, or those who opted for a patdown..

Now again.. I'm not saying that this is policy now..

And I'm asking again please do not misquote me in your responses..

Key word is "caught." Yeah, once they've caught stealing, TSA steps right up.

But what about "accused" of stealing? "Reports of theft?" Let's look at IAH according to the Examiner (http://www.examiner.com/page-one-in-houston/another-tsa-airport-screener-accused-of-stealing-after-checkpoint-sting)



Yeah, sounds like TSA is real proactive about responding to those claims. :rolleyes:

A TSO destroyed a coworker's laptop by purposely dropping it on the floor. It took well over 6 months for TSA to deny the claim. They said it was already broken when it had been dropped, even though the coworker used it before arriving at the airport.:mad:

I'm not sure why you responded to my post... but since you did...

I have personally witnessed the elderly being patted down without hesitation.

The most recent time, it was a woman who appeared to be about 70 years old, wearing a scarrrrrrrry skirt through the checkpoint. Even without an alarm from the WTMD, she still got frisked.

No one is exempt. And because there is not a publicly available procedure, anything goes. There's no way to know if it's out of bounds. Even when we think we know, it later turns out to be simply a test of something new.

I recall reading that you are an infrequent traveler. That you have not (or rarely have) seen it is a function of how infrequently you are in airports that rely heavily on body scanners.

For example, places like RDU (and, frequently, hubs like O'Hare) scan every single person when they can keep up. And regardless of age, if the TSO viewing the scan thinks he sees an anomaly, there will be a pat-down.

Each of us has a choice to care or not care. However, the belief that these things do not routinely occur, to travelers young and old, is patently absurd.

I was responding to your post #172.. where you quoted exbayern's comment..

I read it in a fashion where it seems that those who are being scanned seemed to be selected not just randomly, but picked almost arbitraririly out of the line..

I would agree it would be absurd to do this.. and hopefully the TSA has taken the arbitrariness out of the randomness..

...hopefully the TSA has taken the arbitrariness out of the randomness..

What a great new Mission Statement that would make: Your TSA: Working Together to Take The Arbitrariness Out of The Randomness! ;)

What a great new Mission Statement that would make: Your TSA: Working Together to Take The Arbitrariness Out of The Randomness! ;)

LOL!

Lots of angles.. and lots of different perspectives with what goes on in our travels nowadays.. no bigger issue than security..

Where I stand imo.. the enhanced homeland security of TSA doesn't improve security at all.. rather adds costs, and increased inconvenience to innocent paying travellers

IMA.. although I may consider myself an infrequent traveller.. I am more frequent than say most of my friends and co-workers.. travelling upwards 2 months a year to the US.. in frequencies of 2 or 3 annually.. Some may think that this is infrequent.. some may think that this is frequent.. all I know is.. this instills the Arbitrariness in the Randomness.;)

Second of all.. IME during spring break.. All passengers going through immigration/customs that were Canadian was scanned through the Nude-O-Scope at YYC or given an option of a pat down.. Now it was only during that period.. and I have mentioned in my numerous posts that this may have changed.. Although, you seem to be going back to my language and misquoting me..

I was referring to Mimi and I being ESL posters. Perhaps my English skills are not quite as strong as yours. I am not misquoting you; I have copied your words each time and certainly have not changed your posts, and as that is a violation of terms of FT I don't appreciate you accusing me of such.

However again, you are absolutely mistaken that ALL passengers during spring break were scanned or searched at YYC during the spring break period. That simply cannot happen without very significant waits; currently a very small percentage of travellers are scanned or patted down and to search all would result in waits of several hours at the checkpoint, and would have been reported in the media as well as on FT. There is also at least one CATSA agent who posts here. I even doubt that for a fixed period of time such as Spring Break the process was changed from random to mandatory as that is I suspect a violation of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and would have received media attention.

All passengers going through immigration/customs that were Canadian was scanned through the Nude-O-Scope at YYC or given an option of a pat down..

You say immigration/customs above - the CATSA checkpoint is seperate from the CBP checkpoint. Again, I believe that you may be confused about several points in regards to airport security, and I have done my best to explain it to you. Several other posters have also affirmed what I have written.

What I do suspect may have happened is that you or the first member of your party were selected from the randomizer mat, and that you were all directed to the lane for additional screening. It would then appear that 'everyone' was being scanned or patted down because the travellers in that particular lane were being scanned or patted down, even if that really was not the case.

Sounds great until you get a lying cop like Phil Mocek did, and end up in jail anyway with trumped up charges and thousands of dollars in legal fees .... :mad:

Let's not forget that the lying cop never would have been there if it weren't for the lying TSA employees.

If a TSO cannot tell on sight if a 6 gauge metal nipple ring is a weapon or not, that person has no business working security on any level, anywhere, at any time, for any reason.

On sight--which means removing the garments that cover it so they can see it!