Checkpoints and Borders Policy Debate - TSA Refuses Drivers License, Demands Passport

So last week when I flew out of JFK on an international flight, I was surprised by the TSA ID checker asking to see my passport after I presented her with my valid Florida drivers license...

http://tsaoutofourpants.wordpress.com/2012/07/19/tsa-refuses-drivers-license-demands-passport/

--Jon

1- This has happened to me in SJU flying SJU-PTY and SJU-SDQ, and it's always been with the same upper middle aged female TSO, who for some reason still works there.

2- I got a similar response at BOS when asked for a second ID (now we have some issues). I had given them a US passport, and as my second ID, I gave them my Spanish passport.

For some reason, in international terminals they want to make sure you have a passport. I have been asked for a passport when flying out of JFK and ORD when they see an international destination. I've was even refused entry until I called a supervisor, when my wife, who entered 30 minutes before me had my passport inside the secure area.

For some reason, in international terminals they want to make sure you have a passport. I have been asked for a passport when flying out of JFK and ORD when they see an international destination. I've was even refused entry until I called a supervisor, when my wife, who entered 30 minutes before me had my passport inside the secure area.

This is amazing as it is the airlines responsibility to ensure you have the required passport/visa/etc. My experience is that these have already been verified during check-in.

This is amazing as it is the airlines responsibility to ensure you have the required passport/visa/etc. My experience is that these have already been verified during check-in.

Not necessarily as if you check in on-line and only have hand luggage, you can go straight to the gate. It is likely that GA will ask to see your passport in the boarding process. However, I do not believe it is the TSA SOP to demand a passport when the see you are traveling internationally, rather than an acceptable form of ID as shown on their web-site.

This happened to my other half about 6 weeks ago when we were flying out EWR TATL, even though I was in front of her and the TDC did not ask me for a passport but asked her. When I questioned it he said that they had been told by the Airlines to do it. I find it hard to believe that the TSA take any instructions from the Airlines as they tend to make up their rules as they go along.

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/practical-travel-safety-issues/1053502-tsa-requires-passport-intl-flights.html

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/checkpoints-borders-policy-debate/1352740-tdc-ewr-demanded-passport-id-traveling-internationally.html

and others.

Not necessarily as if you check in on-line and only have hand luggage, you can go straight to the gate. It is likely that GA will ask to see your passport in the boarding process. However, I do not believe it is the TSA SOP to demand a passport when the see you are traveling internationally, rather than an acceptable form of ID as shown on their web-site.

This happened to my other half about 6 weeks ago when we were flying out EWR TATL, even though I was in front of her and the TDC did not ask me for a passport but asked her. When I questioned it he said that they had been told by the Airlines to do it. I find it hard to believe that the TSA take any instructions from the Airlines as they tend to make up their rules as they go along.

TSA is definitely not doing it because the airlines requested it.

CBP and TSA are both under DHS, and this is not the first time we've seen a softening of the lines between the two agencies.

TSA will call authorities if you are travelling with >$10k in cash. There are no restrictions on travelling with cash within the US. There are, AFAIK, no restrictions on how much you can take out of the country as long as it is properly declared - and, IIRC, at some airports the customs offices are past the checkpoint, so pax can still take care of the formalities past the checkpoint. Minetta Walters, BUF BDO was fired for escorting drug dealers on domestic itineraries past the checkpoint so the large amounts of cash they were carrying wouldn't be detected.

TDCs on occasion have leafed through passports and challenged visas - expired visas from years prior, for example - clearly they didn't even understand the visa process.

I think we'll see more blurring of the lines between the two agencies (TSA and CBP) as we move forward. We have to have 'papers' to travel by air (and, in some instances, bus or train) within the borders of our own country. TSA steps in, without training or knowledge, and tries to apply CBP rules and restrictions to domestic travel.

I submitted the following question on TSA.gov.

When flying internationally, can a TSO demand that you show your passport as ID instead of, say, a driver's license? Or would a driver's license suffice when presenting boarding pass and ID, even if flying internationally?

The reply --

It is not a requirement that one has to present a U.S. Passport when traveling internationally, however there is nothing to say that a TSO can't request to see another form of ID such as a Passport either. Generally, the Passport is the most often used form of ID by those traveling internationally.

Having said that, please be aware that airlines are responsible for verifying that a passenger carries a valid Passport for international travel and most airlines will either verify prior to issuing a boarding pass, or when presenting the boarding pass at the boarding gate.

http://tsaoutofourpants.wordpress.com/2012/07/19/tsa-refuses-drivers-license-demands-passport/

--Jon
On your blog site, you wrote Second, even Customs has no right to ask for my passport as I leave the country. By law, we impose no “exit controls” on our borders, and such controls have frequently been used as tools of oppressing the people.
You are wrong about CBP not having a right to ask for your travel documents when you are leaving the country. By law, the CBP has the authority to check papers when somebody is leaving the country - they just choose not to do it on a regular basis. Sometimes, you can see CBP agents checking documents from departing public at airports and land borders - because they are given this authority by the US government.

I understand that you may have some strong political opinion about this and that [your comment about "opressing the people" gives a strong hint], and I am not arguing whether exit controls are right or wrong, but at least you should not distort the facts.

On your blog site, you wrote
You are wrong about CBP not having a right to ask for your travel documents when you are leaving the country. By law, the CBP has the authority to check papers when somebody is leaving the country - they just choose not to do it on a regular basis. Sometimes, you can see CBP agents checking documents from departing public at airports and land borders - because they are given this authority by the US government.

I understand that you may have some strong political opinion about this and that [your comment about "opressing the people" gives a strong hint], and I am not arguing whether exit controls are right or wrong, but at least you should not distort the facts.

Correct, three of my last five flights had CBP checking all docs in the jetway before boarding, with the routine of questions and whatnot.

you can youtube (or maybe Hulu) that show Homeland Security and see some of the episodes where they do exit checks and catch people with money and whatnot while leaving via plane.

Also the airlines send the exit manifests to CBP before departure for checking ( and look at how DSK was caught for example).

They happen here just with much less regularity than, say Europe.

Two of my last 4 trips out of the UK had the booths set up for exit checks at LHR also. It happens...

I've never seen anything like that -- perhaps I'm not flying to "exciting enough" destinations. I'm also not sure that you're compelled to respond to such questions. If you get stopped at one of their highway checkpoints in the south, you can tell them to f off and they have to let you go. The airport checks you've seen are likely more like the highway checkpoints than the port of entry checkpoints in terms of requirement of participation, but if Customs is also beginning to implement exit controls, we are just that more screwed.

On your blog site, you wrote
You are wrong about CBP not having a right to ask for your travel documents when you are leaving the country. By law, the CBP has the authority to check papers when somebody is leaving the country - they just choose not to do it on a regular basis. Sometimes, you can see CBP agents checking documents from departing public at airports and land borders - because they are given this authority by the US government.

--Jon

I've never seen anything like that -- perhaps I'm not flying to "exciting enough" destinations. I'm also not sure that you're compelled to respond to such questions. If you get stopped at one of their highway checkpoints in the south, you can tell them to f off and they have to let you go. The airport checks you've seen are likely more like the highway checkpoints than the port of entry checkpoints in terms of requirement of participation, but if Customs is also beginning to implement exit controls, we are just that more screwed.


We still don't have exit controls per se--unless you are legally restricted in some capacity (arrest warrant, for example, in which case you don't really have the right to walk down the street either, condition of parole or bail, etc.), you have the absolute right to leave the United States. The main purpose of CBP outbound checks is because certain things are illegal to remove from the US, e.g. military weapons without a license, undeclared cash, etc.

Just a little more added confusion from the DHS merger. There's still nothing in immigration law that allowed INS or now allows CBP to prevent an otherwise-free person from leaving the United States. Customs did and CBP does have the right to search for contraband whenever you're crossing the border or its "functional equivalent."

You can tell CBP outbound to f... off as well (though they do have the right to see your travel docs, you have the right not to answer their questions). They can search as much as they want, but they have no right to prevent people from leaving the country.

Even with formal exit controls, Australia and Germany (for example) seem to remain pretty free :)

I thought the passport was a preferred way to go through security around here since it doesn't have a home address on it. A passport card or NEXUS card (if the TDC recognizes it) would probably be better since it wouldn't have visas or stamps on it.

While the USA does not have formal exit controls in the sense of a checkpoint, DHS is fully authorized to conduct exactly the same inspections or examinations as the case may be on individuals leaving the USA.

Here this is done on a randomized basis. But bags (carry-ons at this stage) are fully subject to search and CBP has LEO agents who, as the title denotes, have full Federal law enforcement authority. CBP can also conduct searches of checked luggage outbound.

As to TSA, the fact that an Officer does not himself have law enforcement authority does not mean that he can't report his own observations of violations of law to the appropriate law enforcement authority.

As to TSA, the fact that an Officer does not himself have law enforcement authority does not mean that he can't report his own observations of violations of law to the appropriate law enforcement authority.

But I am under no obligation to cooperate with a TSO who is going beyond the scope of his job role to dig up dirt on me. And it is not the TDC's duty to perform any immigration- or customs-related functions. It is to ensure that the boarding pass matches the ID matches the passenger. (We can debate the security value of that check.)

You can tell CBP outbound to f... off as well (though they do have the right to see your travel docs, you have the right not to answer their questions). They can search as much as they want, but they have no right to prevent people from leaving the country.


But... TSA can prevent you from getting on the airplane for whatever arbitrary and capricious reasons they might have whether or not CBP would do the same. If they do not have the same level of training in these matters as CBP, it is troubling that they would be attempting these functions at all.

It is not a requirement that one has to present a U.S. Passport when traveling internationally, however there is nothing to say that a TSO can't request to see another form of ID such as a Passport either. Generally, the Passport is the most often used form of ID by those traveling internationally.

So... I have a new procedure @ BOS when leaving the country: Present my driver's license and when they ask for another ID, expecting a passport, present my Global Entry card...

Ah, fun. I'll be sure to leave plenty of time when it ensues.

As to TSA, the fact that an Officer does not himself have law enforcement authority does not mean that he can't report his own observations of violations of law to the appropriate law enforcement authority.

I have no problem with them doing so. I'm happy to show my passport to anyone entitled to see it.

So... I have a new procedure @ BOS when leaving the country: Present my driver's license and when they ask for another ID, expecting a passport, present my Global Entry card...

Ah, fun. I'll be sure to leave plenty of time when it ensues.


And I am sure people behind you in line will express their feelings to you and your closest relatives in a no so nice way.... As I've done it in the past when someone started to ruffle his feathers arguing with a TSO over some ID to look cool and have a moment of self-importance. Unreal....

I really don't get it. I read people .....ing because they are required to show a D/L, others because they have to show a passport. What's the big deal?

--J

And I am sure people behind you in line will express their feelings to you and your closest relatives in a no so nice way.... As I've done it in the past when someone started to ruffle his feathers arguing with a TSO over some ID to look cool and have a moment of self-importance. Unreal....

I really don't get it. I read people .....ing because they are required to show a D/L, others because they have to show a passport. What's the big deal?

--J

I'm sorry, but I'll give you the same excuse they give me...write your Congressional representative if you don't like it.

TSA has a list of accepted IDs, it's even in their SOPs, and it's proven here and through personal experience that their front line staff isn't trained in identifying many of the accepted IDs--passports, driver's licenses and trusted traveler cards included.

I've never seen anything like that -- perhaps I'm not flying to "exciting enough" destinations.
Nothing exciting, just regular destinations. Happened to me once on the way to Germany and twice when crossing the land border at Blaine, WA. They just checked the passport [card] and asked if I have a large amount of cash.

I'm also not sure that you're compelled to respond to such questions.
Yes, but they can detain you for some times and you can miss your flight.

If you get stopped at one of their highway checkpoints in the south, you can tell them to f off and they have to let you go. The airport checks you've seen are likely more like the highway checkpoints than the port of entry checkpoints in terms of requirement of participation
Nope - what I have seen and experienced were real outbound immigration checks, nothing like Border Patrol checkpoints in the interior. By law, you have to show your passport if requested by the CBP when you are leaving the country.

if Customs is also beginning to implement exit controls, we are just that more screwed.
If you are on the alert list, you have a high probability of being caught by the CBP before taking off anyway. Just because you do not see physical exit controls does not mean that there is no control at all. I do not know what you mean by "more screwed" because USA is one of the very few countries that do not implement exit controls, but I still fail to see how other countries with exit controls are screwed in your definition. I would gladly pass through both entry and exit controls in Germany any day rather than going only through entry control in the USA. It is not like those countries with exit controls live in Orwellian world :rolleyes:

But... TSA can prevent you from getting on the airplane for whatever arbitrary and capricious reasons they might have whether or not CBP would do the same. If they do not have the same level of training in these matters as CBP, it is troubling that they would be attempting these functions at all.

Yes. But what do they do if the passenger (foreign) har run out off thier funds? Just like a lot of people do. Even more younger people do. Do they keep them for ever or what?

Doesnt that mean they get in trouble with immigration?

And I am sure people behind you in line will express their feelings to you and your closest relatives in a no so nice way.

I fly midweek or Sundays, usually on daytime flights and I have access to elite lines. I can't recall last time I had someone behind me.

That said, wanna abuse me for making the TSA follow their own rules? Have at it.

And I am sure people behind you in line will express their feelings to you and your closest relatives in a no so nice way.... As I've done it in the past when someone started to ruffle his feathers arguing with a TSO over some ID to look cool and have a moment of self-importance. Unreal....

I really don't get it. I read people .....ing because they are required to show a D/L, others because they have to show a passport. What's the big deal?

--J


I'll make sure to smile and wave at you when you're put on the train for the internment camp. I'm mean, hey, what's the big deal? :rolleyes:

I know FT is very US biased ( in a good sense ) but if you´re travelling internationally I suppose you need the passport anyway for 99,9% of the countries ?

And I am sure people behind you in line will express their feelings to you and your closest relatives in a no so nice way.... As I've done it in the past when someone started to ruffle his feathers arguing with a TSO over some ID to look cool and have a moment of self-importance. Unreal....

I really don't get it. I read people .....ing because they are required to show a D/L, others because they have to show a passport. What's the big deal?

--J

Actually, if I'm one of the people behind him in line, I will be looking around to see if I can shift to a different TDC, one who isn't an idiot looking for trouble. My sympathies will most likely be with the pax.

I don't know people who are ...ing. Seems to me it's always the TDCs ...ing. They don't like the IDs their HQ allows (some don't like seeing passports for domestic travel, some will even insist that a US passport is not[I] valid for domestic travel, some refuse to acknowledge that a NEXUS card is acceptable ID, some leaf through the passport investigating visas and passport stamps that they know nothing about...Seems to me that there's no pleasing some TDCs.

Ask a TDC sometime: "What's the big deal?"

..
I really don't get it. I read people .....ing because they are required to show a D/L, others because they have to show a passport. What's the big deal?...The TDC is empowered to examine ONE piece of acceptable identification. Which one to present them is OUR choice, not theirs. If they ask for TWO, that's exceeding their authority (in an ideal world, I know...) and you should be able to refuse. If they have ONE piece of conforming identification in their hand, that should be the end of discussion. Pass me or fail me, and tell me why. A driver's license doesn't lose its qualification to be your identification document if you're at an international terminal.

I'm sorry, but I'll give you the same excuse they give me...write your Congressional representative if you don't like it.

TSA has a list of accepted IDs, it's even in their SOPs, and it's proven here and through personal experience that their front line staff isn't trained in identifying many of the accepted IDs--passports, driver's licenses and trusted traveler cards included.

^ It's not my duty to try to make things easier for the people behind me when I'm following the rules.

^ It's not my duty to try to make things easier for the people behind me when I'm following the rules.

+1

If you are following the rules and I'm behind you in line, I am going to be holding the trouble-making and/or incompetent TDC responsible for any delays, not you.

And I am sure people behind you in line will express their feelings to you and your closest relatives in a no so nice way.... As I've done it in the past when someone started to ruffle his feathers arguing with a TSO over some ID to look cool and have a moment of self-importance. Unreal....

I really don't get it. I read people .....ing because they are required to show a D/L, others because they have to show a passport. What's the big deal?

--J

I use my passport for travel regardless of where I'm going, but if someone were to walk up to me during my conversation with the screener at the podium and "express their feelings" about something I am doing or saying, I would invite that person to kindly rejoin the line until my conversation is completed.

Respectfully, I don't claim to know "all the laws," but until shown this statute, I do believe you are mistaken.

I also have a troubling new development re: TSA and what they think they're allowed to do with identification documents. Check my blog (or the news) on Monday. :)

By law, you have to show your passport if requested by the CBP when you are leaving the country.

--Jon

And I am sure people behind you in line will express their feelings to you and your closest relatives in a no so nice way.... As I've done it in the past when someone started to ruffle his feathers arguing with a TSO over some ID to look cool and have a moment of self-importance. Unreal....

I really don't get it. I read people .....ing because they are required to show a D/L, others because they have to show a passport. What's the big deal?

--J

Which is why I will say "Please get your supervisor. In the meantime, I will stand over here out of the way so these other people can go through." I do not stop the line, and I do not show another ID just because they ask for it. They are holding a valid ID and they should use it.

Respectfully, I don't claim to know "all the laws," but until shown this statute, I do believe you are mistaken.

I also have a troubling new development re: TSA and what they think they're allowed to do with identification documents. Check my blog (or the news) on Monday. :)



--Jon

I think US Code on CBP authority is pretty clear on this: “All persons, baggage and merchandise arriving in the Customs territory of the United States from places outside thereof are liable to inspection by a CBP officer.”

Not totally OT, but is anyone aware of explicit rules
whether TSA has the right to examine the Visa pages,
or just the front page with picture and data?

There was some discussion of this on FT,
but I still don't know if an actual rule exists.

I once asked the agent "what are you looking for?"
She insisted she had the right to look through the pages.

Another agent said.... "You travel a lot",
then glared at my non-response, until I asked
"Was there a question?".

Anyway, just wondering if the rules on this
have been put into writing anywhere yet.

And I am sure people behind you in line will express their feelings to you and your closest relatives in a no so nice way.... As I've done it in the past when someone started to ruffle his feathers arguing with a TSO over some ID to look cool and have a moment of self-importance. Unreal....

I really don't get it. I read people .....ing because they are required to show a D/L, others because they have to show a passport. What's the big deal?

--J

You obviously aren't sufficiently impressed by the Keyboard Kommando Korps on TS&S. Don't you know you're surrounded by bada$$es?

Respectfully, I don't claim to know "all the laws," but until shown this statute, I do believe you are mistaken.
See below.


I think US Code on CBP authority is pretty clear on this: “All persons, baggage and merchandise arriving in the Customs territory of the United States from places outside thereof are liable to inspection by a CBP officer.”

I presume Affection was asking about our experiances leaving the USA and being asked, which again CBP can and does do. Nothing exotic about the destinations. LHR, FRA, CDG, AMS, FCO. I have seen it done to all of these.

http://www.cbp.gov/linkhandler/cgov/newsroom/publications/travel/welcome2us.ctt/welcome2us.pdf
Page 18:
Outbound CBP Inspections
A CBP officer may select you for an interview when
you leave the United States. This does not necessarily
mean that you are suspected of any wrongdoing.
CBP officers choose passengers for an interview for a
variety of reasons. In addition to enforcing currency
requirements, CBP ensures that all goods and persons
leaving the United States comply with all U.S. laws and
regulations.

The relevant laws are linked at the bottom of this page and it notes they can check you arriving or LEAVING the United States (it happens everyday, fly enough and you will see it or if you have free time at a big airport watch the int'l departure gates, you can see the guys come up with their gear, often times they bring portable document scanners):
https://help.cbp.gov/app/answers/detail/a_id/176/kw/leaving%20united%20states
The exact legal citation for our search authority can be found in Title 19 of the United States Code, Sections 482, 1467, 1496, 1581 and 1582. All persons, baggage, and other merchandise arriving in or leaving the United States are subject to inspection and seach by CBP officers. Various laws (including 8 United States Code (U.S.C.) 1357, 19 U.S.C. 482, 1581, 1582) enforced by CBP authorize such searches.

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/homesec/RL31826.pdf
The top of page ten also notes "leaving" travellers can be checked.

They also keep your records PNR records and run you through IBIS:
http://www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/travel/admissibility/authority_to_search.xml
CBP has the authority to collect passenger name record information on all travelers entering or leaving the United States. This information is strictly used for preventing and combating terrorism and serious criminal offenses with the principal purpose of facilitating the CBP mission to protect our Nation’s borders through threat analysis to identify and interdict persons who have already committed or may potentially commit a terrorist act in the future.



A CBP guy used to post here, though I haven't read him here in a while, maybe he can chime in if around.

If you are following the rules and I'm behind you in line, I am going to be holding the trouble-making and/or incompetent TDC responsible for any delays, not you.

How would you do that?

How would you do that?

?? Um...how do you judge any situation and arrive at a conclusion?

While they are both part of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), we must also understand that the entity called Customs and Border Patrol (CBP) is not the entity known as The Transportation Security Administration (TSA).

The CBP is a legitimate law enforcement arm of the federal government dealing with customs and border control issues and the TSA is tasked with screening passengers for the presence of items that can be used to affect the security of the traveling public, primarily in air travel.

As such, the CBP has investigative powers and responsibilities including powers of detention that are not vested in the TSA or its screeners. It is the reason that the TSA must summon legitimate law enforcement officers (LEO's) to handle basic law enforcement actions when they are deemed necessary.

Confusing the two is easy as they are both part of the gauntlet to be run when traveling internationally. However, to return to the subject of this thread and ID, TSA is only tasked with matching certain aspects of a valid government ID to a boarding document as part of the process for allowing access to the sterile area of the airport. There is no specific ID just a variety that are to be accepted if presented. Most important, the TSA is not given the task of matching certain ID's to certain types of travel. It is the function of the CBP to determine that proper travel documentation is possessed for international travel.

Simplification is in order: TSA determines ones acceptability to cross the threshold into the airport and, in some controversial respects, movement within the airport. CBP determines ones acceptability to move across an international border and whether duties and fees may be required for such movement. The ID requirements for each are different.

TSA is only tasked with matching certain aspects of a valid government ID to a boarding document as part of the process for allowing access to the sterile area of the airport.
I don't believe the above is correct, and that's not part of the problem here. Saying somebody is "tasked" normally means that somebody has given them that job. Nobody has been able to find anywhere in the law that TSA has been given that task. Rather, they've taken it upon themselves.

But I am under no obligation to cooperate with a TSO who is going beyond the scope of his job role to dig up dirt on me. And it is not the TDC's duty to perform any immigration- or customs-related functions. It is to ensure that the boarding pass matches the ID matches the passenger. (We can debate the security value of that check.)

Exactly. If a TSO demands to see my passport, it isn't happening.

Not totally OT, but is anyone aware of explicit rules
whether TSA has the right to examine the Visa pages,
or just the front page with picture and data?

There was some discussion of this on FT,
but I still don't know if an actual rule exists.

I once asked the agent "what are you looking for?"
She insisted she had the right to look through the pages.

Another agent said.... "You travel a lot",
then glared at my non-response, until I asked
"Was there a question?".

Anyway, just wondering if the rules on this
have been put into writing anywhere yet.

This is the proper answer. TSA's job - at any airport - is to insure that the airport and air travel is safe. It's not to enforce any other law ("call a LEO") or enforce border controls. As such, if you present any valid ID of your choice to the TDC, they're required to let you pass. Anything else ("Can I see your driver's license?" "Do you have a passport?") is power tripping and needs to be shut down.

What's happening is that an ambitious blueshirt wants to catch a bad guy and is sniffing around for something to be suspicious about besides a prohibited item on an airplane.

See my post here. (http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/18733111-post45.html) Not quite the same thing but a definite self-assumed expansion of authority of someone with a plastic badge. As American citizens, it's our job to be vigilant about protecting our rights, else they'll get incrementally chipped away. The TDC is not authorized to freely inspect our papers at his/her/its whim just to fish for something suspicious and we shouldn't let them.

This is the proper answer. TSA's job - at any airport - is to insure that the airport and air travel is safe. It's not to enforce any other law ("call a LEO") or enforce border controls. As such, if you present any valid ID of your choice to the TDC, they're required to let you pass. Anything else ("Can I see your driver's license?" "Do you have a passport?") is power tripping and needs to be shut down.

What's happening is that an ambitious blueshirt wants to catch a bad guy and is sniffing around for something to be suspicious about besides a prohibited item on an airplane.

See my post here. (http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/18733111-post45.html) Not quite the same thing but a definite self-assumed expansion of authority of someone with a plastic badge. As American citizens, it's our job to be vigilant about protecting our rights, else they'll get incrementally chipped away. The TDC is not authorized to freely inspect our papers at his/her/its whim just to fish for something suspicious and we shouldn't let them.

I have heard that TSO's receive bonuses for any "finds" of criminal behavior they might run across at the checkpoint. Can this be confirmed? If this is true, it would explain a lot of the over-reaching behaviors of the screeners... inspecting papers, wallet contents, etal... Even if their ~primary~ tasks are to prevent IED's and threats from getting into the sterile area, if there is a financial motivation for finding more than IED's and other actual threats, more will be sought, likely to the detriment of the primary purpose of TSA's presence.

I have heard that TSO's receive bonuses for any "finds" of criminal behavior they might run across at the checkpoint. Can this be confirmed? If this is true, it would explain a lot of the over-reaching behaviors of the screeners... inspecting papers, wallet contents, etal... Even if their ~primary~ tasks are to prevent IED's and threats from getting into the sterile area, if there is a financial motivation for finding more than IED's and other actual threats, more will be sought, likely to the detriment of the primary purpose of TSA's presence.

I have not heard this, but if it's true it's an outrage and does indeed explain a lot... like the arrests for drugs or other contraband found in luggage.

Someone needs to get more info on this - I'll start searching myself.

Respectfully, I don't claim to know "all the laws," but until shown this statute, I do believe you are mistaken.

I also have a troubling new development re: TSA and what they think they're allowed to do with identification documents. Check my blog (or the news) on Monday. :)



--Jon

How do they know your citizenship without looking at your passport? There are penalties for overstay and aliens who do overstay can get "overstay" stamped in their passport. They need to know whether to collect your I-94 and they don't know whether you are supposed to have an I-94 without looking at your passport.

Interesting topic....

On the TSA website it clearly states any one on the list satisfies the requirement. For the agent to decide one is not acceptable over another falls outside of his/her authority. (yet it's done all the time for them to overstep)

I travel often and the ID I use is my official ID from work and I've never been told to produce another form.

There are some real winners out there....

How do they know your citizenship without looking at your passport? There are penalties for overstay and aliens who do overstay can get "overstay" stamped in their passport. They need to know whether to collect your I-94 and they don't know whether you are supposed to have an I-94 without looking at your passport.

Even looking at a passport, they don't necessarily know a person's lawful presence status.

I have heard that TSO's receive bonuses for any "finds" of criminal behavior they might run across at the checkpoint. Can this be confirmed?
There were reports of that in the past, though even they stated that the "bonuses" weren't anything formal. But the TSA has agreed with the ACLU that such things are unconstitutional, so if it's happening now, it's likely even much less formal.

And as to I-94's, what does the TSA have to do with that? To say nothing of the fact that most I-94's have gone away.

FlyingHoustonian: After reading the statutes provided by CBP in your post, my conclusion remains that while searches upon entry are compulsary, searches while leaving (outside reasonable suspicion) are not.

--Jon

Even looking at a passport, they don't necessarily know a person's lawful presence status.

If you are not a US citizen or a permanent resident, you should have an I-94, which will include the expiration of your authorized stay. It won't indicate whether or not you violated conditions of the stay (like getting a job when you weren't supposed to, or dropping out of school if you entered on a student visa), but they will be able to tell if you overstayed. And the I-94 should be stapled in the passport.

If you are not a US citizen or a permanent resident, you should have an I-94, which will include the expiration of your authorized stay.

Not necessarily. Things of this sort are far more nuanced than your above post communicates. There are so many "exceptions" to what you posted above that I am not going to even start listing them with the applicable conditional elements.

How do they know your citizenship without looking at your passport? There are penalties for overstay and aliens who do overstay can get "overstay" stamped in their passport. They need to know whether to collect your I-94 and they don't know whether you are supposed to have an I-94 without looking at your passport.

The TSA has no business with citizenship.They don't deal with collecting I-94s. And everyone who travels on visa-waiver no longer gets a physical I-94 anyway.

When we did have physical I-94s they were collected by the airlines (and you'd better try to make them take it yourself, 'cause they didn't always remember that.)

DanishFlyer

FlyingHoustonian: After reading the statutes provided by CBP in your post, my conclusion remains that while searches upon entry are compulsary, searches while leaving (outside reasonable suspicion) are not.

--Jon

Well, when you miss your flight, which they regularly do, you can come back and report it to us.

It seems like you don't fly enough to run into them so I wouldn't trouble yourself about it.

The fact remains, it is cumpulsory. They can stop you from getting on the plane, and it is in the US code linked. Carpe google.

Whether any of us like that is not the point.

Well, when you miss your flight, which they regularly do, you can come back and report it to us.

It seems like you don't fly enough to run into them so I wouldn't trouble yourself about it.

The fact remains, it is cumpulsory. They can stop you from getting on the plane, and it is in the US code linked. Carpe google.

Whether any of us like that is not the point.

Absent a court involvement, can they stop a US citizen from deciding to no longer attempt to exit the country? Thus no grounds for applying exit control to such person? Mistaken or not, I was under the impression that legally they have the authority to enforce exit controls too.

A person showing up at a US port of entry on US soil is different than a person showing up to exit the US but changing their mind.

The TSA has no business with citizenship.They don't deal with collecting I-94s. And everyone who travels on visa-waiver no longer gets a physical I-94 anyway.

When we did have physical I-94s they were collected by the airlines (and you'd better try to make them take it yourself, 'cause they didn't always remember that.)

DanishFlyer

I wasn't responding to that point, I was responding to the argument that the CPB has no right to look at anything for people leaving the country. I agree with you and others that the TSA has no right to insist on looking at a passport. I would ask, though, that everyone with a passport present it to the TDC unless they have an objection to doing so, so that we can get back a report of a TDC not knowing what a passport is.

I wasn't responding to that point, I was responding to the argument that the CPB has no right to look at anything for people leaving the country. I agree with you and others that the TSA has no right to insist on looking at a passport. I would ask, though, that everyone with a passport present it to the TDC unless they have an objection to doing so, so that we can get back a report of a TDC not knowing what a passport is.

Sorry, I misunderstood.

However, it is still the case that CBP does not normally inspect passports on air departures from the US, maybe sometimes they do, I have never experienced this.

And even then inspecting the passport (without a scanner linked to "the system") would not tell them all that much. People's circumstances change during their stay without necessarily meaning a change in the passport or becoming illegal or overstay.

DanishFlyer

I don't see what the problem is when asked to show your passport along with the boarding card.
The U.S. and Canada are the only countries that I know of that do not have an exit check using a customs or immigration agent. Think of exiting Japan, UK, Schengen Zone to non-Shengen zone, South Africa, India, and even Singapore to an international destination. You have to show you passport and boarding card to someone who will then stamp your passport with an exit stamp.
So if a TDC asks you for your passport when you are travelling internationally, why make it a problem? They are just making sure that you have the docuements to proceed to the next level in the Security Theater game.
I am no fan of the TSA, but I don't have a problem with showing my boarding card and passport as id when asked to do so by the TDC.

Not to be an @ss, but do you know who I am? ;)

Well, when you miss your flight, which they regularly do, you can come back and report it to us.

It seems like you don't fly enough to run into them so I wouldn't trouble yourself about it.

--Jon

I don't see what the problem is when asked to show your passport along with the boarding card.
The U.S. and Canada are the only countries that I know of that do not have an exit check using a customs or immigration agent. Think of exiting Japan, UK, Schengen Zone to non-Shengen zone, South Africa, India, and even Singapore to an international destination. You have to show you passport and boarding card to someone who will then stamp your passport with an exit stamp.
So if a TDC asks you for your passport when you are travelling internationally, why make it a problem? They are just making sure that you have the docuements to proceed to the next level in the Security Theater game.
I am no fan of the TSA, but I don't have a problem with showing my boarding card and passport as id when asked to do so by the TDC.

You can do as you like, and your views are reasonable as they apply to yourself. Others don't want the TSA pawing through their passports. Others just want the TSA to follow TSA rules, which are that presenting an ID on the approved list satisfies the ID requirement. Their views are reasonable too.

If the TSA wants to make sure you have your passport so you will be ready for CBP, or for entry at your destination, they can just ask you, do you have your passport? In addition, the airline always wants to see it.

Not to be an @ss, but do you know who I am? ;)



--Jon

Not to be an @$$ either but yeah I've read many of your posts here, and your blog (I fly more :eek: not that that is a good thing :D;) ), and I commend your "lawsuit"good luck (re: your link), though when I was a registered lobbyist I actually affected change in the TSA and I have posted more than once about how people on this site really can get change.
First it takes money and organisation. Not to digress to much but lawsuits will do little, as can be seen by the many posted here. It will take direct congressional action to change TSA (and DHS). I can tell you from the lobbying world you need money, volunteers, time and organisation/leadership.
Complaining about the feckless TSA policies and leadership on this board is nice for all of us to vent but if you a do a search the same crap has been happening for years. Venting here doesn't fix it. Congress made it and congress must fix it.

As for the outbound checks-I fly international flights, on average, once a week (some corporate, some government, most commercial). My hit rate for exit checks is about 3-5% YMMV

I don't like anything about a "papersplease" society and I've lived in some much worse than here. However, CBP does have the right to stop and ask for documents when exiting the USA and they can examine you when leaving.
As GUwonder alluded, whether one can say no and turn around and leave? Well I don't know. Great question. I've never been in the position to try, I always had to be somewhere so with as little speech as possible I turn over my passport and move on.

again, good luck with all of it.

BTW a long read but http://www.hsdl.org/?view&did=235140 talks about the FEB being outbound at Airport and Land Borders, somewhere around page 23 or 24 You could always email CBP and ask (use a public computer and e-mail i you like) they will tell you specifics.

FlyingHoustonian: After reading the statutes provided by CBP in your post, my conclusion remains that while searches upon entry are compulsary, searches while leaving (outside reasonable suspicion) are not.

--Jon

My guess is that you'd have to present ID to CBP solely as a law enforcement officer, just as you would if the police asked to view ID (even as a driver, you could lawfully hold up your operator's license to the closed window of a car and be in compliance with that one), but I too find nothing that states that you must present a passport to CBP, and especially TSA.

Even looking at a passport, they don't necessarily know a person's lawful presence status.

Agreed. There was a period of well over a year that examining my wife's passport would have made it look like she was out of status. During part of that time she didn't even have *ANY* paper that indicated she was here legally.

*facepalm* You don't have to show ID to any law enforcement officer absent reason. The Supreme Court has roundly rejected "papers, please." The only reason you have to do it in a car is because you are engaging in a licensed activity (driving).

My guess is that you'd have to present ID to CBP solely as a law enforcement officer, just as you would if the police asked to view ID (even as a driver, you could lawfully hold up your operator's license to the closed window of a car and be in compliance with that one), but I too find nothing that states that you must present a passport to CBP, and especially TSA.

--Jon

*facepalm* You don't have to show ID to any law enforcement officer absent reason. The Supreme Court has roundly rejected "papers, please." The only reason you have to do it in a car is because you are engaging in a licensed activity (driving).



--Jon

Actually, just a couple of weeks ago the Supreme Court upheld a law that allows law enforcement to demand papers from anyone they "suspect", without placing any parameters whatsoever on what may be cause of suspicion. This is a rather disturbing development that might eventually be used to justify additional checks at airports.

Reasonable suspicion is different than asking random people for papers.

Actually, just a couple of weeks ago the Supreme Court upheld a law that allows law enforcement to demand papers from anyone they "suspect", without placing any parameters whatsoever on what may be cause of suspicion. This is a rather disturbing development that might eventually be used to justify additional checks at airports.

--Jon

Normally if you see CPB checking documents at a departure gate, they're looking for something on someone specific but don't want to single the person out.

There's a "reason" for the "randomness"...

By the way, CPB has also worked on domestic flights too if it's related to a non US Citizen. These folks are usually non uniformed.

Normally if you see CPB checking documents at a departure gate, they're looking for something on someone specific but don't want to single the person out..

Often, but the above is far from being generally true. A lot of this is a fishing expedition.

TSA has a list of accepted IDs, it's even in their SOPs, and it's proven here and through personal experience that their front line staff isn't trained in identifying many of the accepted IDs--passports, driver's licenses and trusted traveler cards included.I've had at least three miserable experiences at JFK trying to use my Global Entry card as ID. The dates were May 22, June 28 and the latest, July 18. The TDC clerks claim to have never seen a Global Entry card and insist that "it isn't valid here"; the supervisors back them up. Each time, I had to get a screening manager to let me through, after extraordinarily long waits.

The last time, even the screening manager had never seen the card before and basically said that I have to allow for TSA staff to become trained to recognize them. I said that training their staff is their problem, not mine. In any case, they refuse to allow me to educate them, never going beyond ever more insistent demands for another form of ID. No opportunity to learn there!

Bruce

Reasonable suspicion is different than asking random people for papers. --Jon

'Reasonable suspicion' can be anything the officer wants it to be.

'Random'? Unless it really is 'every 4th pax', or 'anyone with a backpack', it isn't 'random'. LEO chooses a target and reports it later as a 'random' choice. Who's going to prove it didn't happen that way?

I've had at least three miserable experiences at JFK trying to use my Global Entry card as ID. The dates were May 22, June 28 and the latest, July 18. The TDC clerks claim to have never seen a Global Entry card and insist that "it isn't valid here"; the supervisors back them up. Each time, I had to get a screening manager to let me through, after extraordinarily long waits.

The last time, even the screening manager had never seen the card before and basically said that I have to allow for TSA staff to become trained to recognize them. I said that training their staff is their problem, not mine. In any case, they refuse to allow me to educate them, never going beyond ever more insistent demands for another form of ID. No opportunity to learn there!

Bruce

I had 2 bad experiences, both at terminal 2:

Clerk didn't know what it was, called supervisory clerk, she didn't now what it was, had 4 of them, none of them knew what it was. Gave them driver's license finally.


Another time, clerk didn't know what it was, but was going to let me go on, then I got mad and said why didn't he know what it was, he then told me to wait, called for a supervisory clerk, said I had presented the card and then started giving him a hard time. Supervisory clerk didn't know what it was either (oh, the supervisory clerk was fat, loud and rude, so that information should be distinctive enough for you to identify him). I finally gave them my driver's license, but then asked the supervisory clerk was there a higher supervisor available, he said no (which, I now believe from reading about this here, was a lie). Said, I'll call Port if you interfere with the screening process. I decided that since I was on the airside I would go sit in the lounge and continue chatting with my friend.

I sent an email to the civil rights email address that the TSA has, relating my experiences and giving the plastic badge numbers of both screening clerks. They sent back an unsatisfactory response.


Another time, went through terminal 4, clerk didn't know what it was, but asked. Guy she asked didn't really know what it was either, but looked for authenticating indicia it looked like to me, and accepted it when he saw that it had authenticating indicia.

Next time I went through 2, the clerk KNEW WHAT IT WAS (although, she couldn't read, because she asked me for my name, even though it was written on the boarding pass). Was it because of my letter to the civil rights division that the terminal 2 clerks recognized my NEXUS card? I don't know. But maybe...

If you have the information, can you tell me:

What's the chain above the supervisory clerk. Is it CSM, and then TSM, and then FSD?

Is somebody like that always on duty or is it only like 9-5 or something

How do you get them to summon one of those people.

Who is the FSD at JFK and what is his contact information?

'Reasonable suspicion' can be anything the officer wants it to be.


Wrong. Reasonable suspicion is a legal standard. It must be based on "specific and articulable facts taken together with rational inferences from those facts," (US v Terry) or when a reasonable person under the circumstances, would, based upon specific and articulable facts, suspect that a crime has been committed.

Wrong. Reasonable suspicion is a legal standard. It must be based on "specific and articulable facts taken together with rational inferences from those facts," (US v Terry) or when a reasonable person under the circumstances, would, based upon specific and articulable facts, suspect that a crime has been committed.

You are absolutely right, and I should have been clearer in my post.

I meant that if an officer stops me and goes on a 'fishing expedition', he/she isn't going to acknowledge later that he did so. 'Reasonable suspicion' can certainly be manufactured on the spot or afterwards in court as justification.

Such manufactured 'reasonable suspicion' doesn't necessarily hold up, but that's not a lot of consolation to someone who has been accosted this way.

Wrong. Reasonable suspicion is a legal standard. It must be based on "specific and articulable facts taken together with rational inferences from those facts," (US v Terry) or when a reasonable person under the circumstances, would, based upon specific and articulable facts, suspect that a crime has been committed.

As in, "he was perspiring, didn't look me in the eye, and looked nervous"?

I wasn't responding to that point, I was responding to the argument that the CPB has no right to look at anything for people leaving the country. I agree with you and others that the TSA has no right to insist on looking at a passport. I would ask, though, that everyone with a passport present it to the TDC unless they have an objection to doing so, so that we can get back a report of a TDC not knowing what a passport is.

Once at SEA the TDC did not appear to recognize my US Passport and demanded that I show her a government issued ID such as my drivers license instead. I asked that she call a supervisor to verify that my passport was indeed a government issued ID, at which point she backed down and accepted my passport.

I know that others have posted similar experiences involving TSOs who do not recognize that a US passport is acceptable government issued ID.

As in, "he was perspiring, didn't look me in the eye, and looked nervous"?

There is one court that ruled that driving the speed limit is reasonable suspicion.

There is one court that ruled that driving the speed limit is reasonable suspicion.

Doesn't surprise me in the least.

If you have the information, can you tell me:

What's the chain above the supervisory clerk. Is it CSM, and then TSM, and then FSD?

Is somebody like that always on duty or is it only like 9-5 or something

How do you get them to summon one of those people.

Who is the FSD at JFK and what is his contact information?

This has been posted here by one of our resident TSO's. (http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/16742696-post2.html)

What I do is to repeatedly ask for a supervisor as in "I need to speak with your supervisor." Also it is very important to keep repeating this, "I does not matter how long it takes to resolve this as I have plenty of time."
You say this even if your flight is boarding and you say it without any sign of nervousness or angst. Can't do that? Then the battle should not be fought. If it goes far enough, eventually someone without a blue uniform will show up. When this occurs you have entered a whole new stage of escalation. First, you better be right. Second, you should never show fear. Third, you should be prepared to suffer consequences such as missing your flight. These battles should only be engaged over issues in which you feel it is of great importance to fight them. If I am not willing to follow through, I keep my powder dry and save my energy for another day.

What I do is to repeatedly ask for a supervisor as in "I need to speak with your supervisor." Also it is very important to keep repeating this, "I does not matter how long it takes to resolve this as I have plenty of time."

You say this even if your flight is boarding and you say it without any sign of nervousness or angst. Can't do that? Then the battle should not be fought. If it goes far enough, eventually someone without a blue uniform will show up. When this occurs you have entered a whole new stage of escalation. First, you better be right. Second, you should never show fear. Third, you should be prepared to suffer consequences such as missing your flight. These battles should only be engaged over issues in which you feel it is of great importance to fight them. If I am not willing to follow through, I keep my powder dry and save my energy for another day.Perfectly stated! ^^^

Bruce

This has been posted here by one of our resident TSO's. (http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/16742696-post2.html)

What I do is to repeatedly ask for a supervisor as in "I need to speak with your supervisor." Also it is very important to keep repeating this, "I does not matter how long it takes to resolve this as I have plenty of time."
You say this even if your flight is boarding and you say it without any sign of nervousness or angst. Can't do that? Then the battle should not be fought. If it goes far enough, eventually someone without a blue uniform will show up. When this occurs you have entered a whole new stage of escalation. First, you better be right. Second, you should never show fear. Third, you should be prepared to suffer consequences such as missing your flight. These battles should only be engaged over issues in which you feel it is of great importance to fight them. If I am not willing to follow through, I keep my powder dry and save my energy for another day.

The fact that you have to say something like this, combined with the fact that such a battle might easily have to be joined just to be able to use a NEXUS card as an ID, tells us a lot about the TSA.

]

What I do is to repeatedly ask for a supervisor as in "I need to speak with your supervisor." Also it is very important to keep repeating this, "I does not matter how long it takes to resolve this as I have plenty of time."
You say this even if your flight is boarding and you say it without any sign of nervousness or angst. Can't do that? Then the battle should not be fought. If it goes far enough, eventually someone without a blue uniform will show up. When this occurs you have entered a whole new stage of escalation. First, you better be right. Second, you should never show fear. Third, you should be prepared to suffer consequences such as missing your flight. These battles should only be engaged over issues in which you feel it is of great importance to fight them. If I am not willing to follow through, I keep my powder dry and save my energy for another day.

^^ Since I always arrive at the airport early, TSA can never use DY...T with me.

Actually, just a couple of weeks ago the Supreme Court upheld a law that allows law enforcement to demand papers from anyone they "suspect", without placing any parameters whatsoever on what may be cause of suspicion. This is a rather disturbing development that might eventually be used to justify additional checks at airports.What is that case? If that is truly the case, then all of us would be required to carry ID at all times and would be quite the expansion of Hiibel.

There is one court that ruled that driving the speed limit is reasonable suspicion.

And driving while black.

And driving while black.I'm sure you have a cite to a recent case. :rolleyes:

.deleted.

What is that case? If that is truly the case, then all of us would be required to carry ID at all times and would be quite the expansion of Hiibel.
I believe the reference is to Arizona v. US, but the Supreme Court did no such thing. The law that was (temporarily) upheld allows Arizona police to make a "reasonable attempt to ... determine the immigration status" of somebody that was arrested. It doesn't require the person arrested to provide any documentation whatsoever and thus has no impact on Hiibel. Moreover, the Court, in its opinion, made it quite clear that it's not happy with many potential ways of implementing that law and seemed to encourage future challenges to that law should it be implemented in an Unconstitional way (for example, by requiring the showing of ID).

For those who aren't familiar with Hiibel, in essence what the Supreme Court held is that it's not an automatic violation of the Fifth Amendment to require that somebody identify oneself (but explicitly left itself open to the possibility that it may in some cases) but that "identify oneself" could not be interpreted in a way that required the showing of specific documents or that it be sufficient to satisfy an officer (because it's unconstitutionally vague what "satisfy" might mean). Indeed, the intent was that "identify oneself" meant to do so verbally.

.deleted.

Oh, #&($@#

This is amazing as it is the airlines responsibility to ensure you have the required passport/visa/etc. My experience is that these have already been verified during check-in.
For every flight I ever flew leaving the country on NW/DL, I'd check-in online, had carry-on only, and would get my documents checked in the club. They'd then stamp it "D/A", and I'd wait, then go to my gate to board.

I believe the reference is to Arizona v. US, but the Supreme Court did no such thing. The law that was (temporarily) upheld allows Arizona police to make a "reasonable attempt to ... determine the immigration status" of somebody that was arrested. It doesn't require the person arrested to provide any documentation whatsoever and thus has no impact on Hiibel. Moreover, the Court, in its opinion, made it quite clear that it's not happy with many potential ways of implementing that law and seemed to encourage future challenges to that law should it be implemented in an Unconstitional way (for example, by requiring the showing of ID).

For those who aren't familiar with Hiibel, in essence what the Supreme Court held is that it's not an automatic violation of the Fifth Amendment to require that somebody identify oneself (but explicitly left itself open to the possibility that it may in some cases) but that "identify oneself" could not be interpreted in a way that required the showing of specific documents or that it be sufficient to satisfy an officer (because it's unconstitutionally vague what "satisfy" might mean). Indeed, the intent was that "identify oneself" meant to do so verbally.

Thanks. This is good information, not just at the airport. (I am someone who often doesn't have any ID on me).

Not sure if this was asked yet... what if you offer up a passport card?

Not sure if this was asked yet... what if you offer up a passport card?

"We don't accept those. Got a driver's licence?"

"We don't accept those. Got a driver's licence?"

I have gotten all of the following at least once using my NEXUS:

I've never seen one of these. DYHAID?
These are no longer valid. DYHAID?
We used to take them, but we no longer do. DYHAID?
We do not take these yet. DYHAID?
These are not accepted at this airport. DYHAID?
These are for international travel only. DYHAID?
These are for domestic travel only. DYHAID?
Nexus is for Canada only. DYHAID?
We are not participating in that program. DYHAID?
What is [insert strange ID here]? DYHAID?
Is this your work ID? DYHAID?
It has to be a government issued ID. DYHAID?
The web site is wrong. DYHAID?
The web site is out of date. DYHAID?
Anyone can make a fake web page and print it out. DYHAID?

I am sure there are some I have forgotten.

[DYHAID?=Do you have another ID?]

Not sure if this was asked yet... what if you offer up a passport card?
I present it since 2009, and it has never been refused at airports. By the way, I present it for both domestic and international travel, and so far no problems.

I believe the reference is to Arizona v. US, but the Supreme Court did no such thing. The law that was (temporarily) upheld allows Arizona police to make a "reasonable attempt to ... determine the immigration status" of somebody that was arrested. It doesn't require the person arrested to provide any documentation whatsoever and thus has no impact on Hiibel. Moreover, the Court, in its opinion, made it quite clear that it's not happy with many potential ways of implementing that law and seemed to encourage future challenges to that law should it be implemented in an Unconstitional way (for example, by requiring the showing of ID).


Not quite. First of all, it does not only apply to anyone who is arrested. It can apply to anyone who the police have "lawful contact" with. For example, it could apply to passengers in a car if the driver broke a traffic rule. Secondly, while you are correct that it does not "require" anyone to provide documentation, it does allow police to make a reasonable attempt to determine the status of anyone they have contact with. Under the law, showing ID is the only way of explicitly proving legal presence, so if someone is unable to do so, they would be detained while police make a "reasonable attempt" to determine who they are. While it is unclear what this could entail, the most likely way of doing this would be to query the federal database. This may require a brief detention period, and the supreme court did not say whether this would be "reasonable" or not. Essentially, the bottom line is that for the time being, there is nothing preventing police in Arizona from detaining someone they find on the street without ID, and holding them until they either produce ID or are able to prove their status by other means.

Not sure if this was asked yet... what if you offer up a passport card?
I've done so for dozens of flights and never had an issue. I had one TSO ask me how to get one. Now I use my Global Entry card and haven't had any problems with that either (two flights so far, one of which was Pre-Check), though we've seen reports that people have.

Not quite. First of all, it does not only apply to anyone who is arrested. It can apply to anyone who the police have "lawful contact" with.
Yes, sorry, that's correct.

Under the law, showing ID is the only way of explicitly proving legal presence, so if someone is unable to do so, they would be detained while police make a "reasonable attempt" to determine who they are. While it is unclear what this could entail, the most likely way of doing this would be to query the federal database. This may require a brief detention period, and the supreme court did not say whether this would be "reasonable" or not.
Yes and no. The discussion is on pages 22-24. The court is saying that it's not going to rule on something not before it because nobody has actually been detained for this purpose, but, in my opinion, it's sending a very strong signal that if a case came before it where somebody was detained in such a circumstance for other than the very briefest of times, it would rule that such was "unreasonable".

Also note two things: the officer must have a "reasonable suspicion" that the person is not legally in the US. As was stated upthread, that's a well-defined legal standard that's not trivial to meet. Also, I disagree that "showing ID is the only way of explicitly proving legal presence" for two reasons. First, showing ID does not prove legal presence, but merely creates a presumption of legal presence. Secondly, the statement that a presumption exists does not imply the converse: there's no presumption that a person not presenting ID is not legally in the state.

I'm sure you have a cite to a recent case. :rolleyes:

I'll have to go down to the Prince George's County MD courthouse to check. They don't post traffic cases on the internet.
Having grown up there and had black friends having been harassed there, I'll stick by my statement.

I have gotten all of the following at least once using my NEXUS:

I've never seen one of these. DYHAID?
These are no longer valid. DYHAID?
We used to take them, but we no longer do. DYHAID?
We do not take these yet. DYHAID?
These are not accepted at this airport. DYHAID?
These are for international travel only. DYHAID?
These are for domestic travel only. DYHAID?
Nexus is for Canada only. DYHAID?
We are not participating in that program. DYHAID?
What is [insert strange ID here]? DYHAID?
Is this your work ID? DYHAID?
It has to be a government issued ID. DYHAID?
The web site is wrong. DYHAID?
The web site is out of date. DYHAID?
Anyone can make a fake web page and print it out. DYHAID?

I am sure there are some I have forgotten.

[DYHAID?=Do you have another ID?]

I hope I don't ever get DYHAID-ed because I have precisely one TSA-accepted piece of ID.

I hope I don't ever get DYHAID-ed because I have precisely one TSA-accepted piece of ID.

I have four and on occasion five. They get to see one, just one and it is my choice.

This has been posted here by one of our resident TSO's. (http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/16742696-post2.html)

That lists the people in the chain. So I should ask for the transportation security manager, or would asking for the customer service manager be useful?

It doesn't have the contact information for the JFK Federal Security Director, whom I would like to write to to complain about these idiots. So if somebody can provide that or point me to it, I'd appreciate it.

I have gotten all of the following at least once using my NEXUS:

I've never seen one of these. DYHAID?
These are no longer valid. DYHAID?
We used to take them, but we no longer do. DYHAID?
We do not take these yet. DYHAID?
These are not accepted at this airport. DYHAID?
These are for international travel only. DYHAID?
These are for domestic travel only. DYHAID?
Nexus is for Canada only. DYHAID?
We are not participating in that program. DYHAID?
What is [insert strange ID here]? DYHAID?
Is this your work ID? DYHAID?
It has to be a government issued ID. DYHAID?
The web site is wrong. DYHAID?
The web site is out of date. DYHAID?
Anyone can make a fake web page and print it out. DYHAID?

I am sure there are some I have forgotten.

[DYHAID?=Do you have another ID?]

We used to take them, but we no longer do. DYHAID?
We do not take these yet. DYHAID?
These are not accepted at this airport. DYHAID?
These are for international travel only. DYHAID?
These are for domestic travel only. DYHAID?
Nexus is for Canada only. DYHAID?
We are not participating in that program. DYHAID?

None of these can be explained by ordinary ignorance; I think the rest can. With all of these, they have learned what it is, but have learned incorrectly - I suppose by failing to pay attention to the training. Or else they have learned correctly, but have forgotten. If the TSA started firing people for laziness or incompetence, we wouldn't be hearing this sort of thing.

That lists the people in the chain. So I should ask for the transportation security manager, or would asking for the customer service manager be useful?

It doesn't have the contact information for the JFK Federal Security Director, whom I would like to write to to complain about these idiots. So if somebody can provide that or point me to it, I'd appreciate it.

This is the last press release I found.

http://www.tsa.gov/press/releases/2009/1005c.shtm

This is the last press release I found.

http://www.tsa.gov/press/releases/2009/1005c.shtm

Love this line, "The FSD is the chief federal security officer at the airport and in the region and the first point of contact when a security issue arises." Yet when I have an issue with security no one at the airport is willing to give the FSD's name or contact information.

I'll have to go down to the Prince George's County MD courthouse to check. They don't post traffic cases on the internet.
Having grown up there and had black friends having been harassed there, I'll stick by my statement.Your statement was that DWB constituted reasonable suspicion. I asked for a court opinion to show that to be the case and you refer to traffic cases.

I'm sure (unfortunately) that certain LEO's are still bigoted in this manner, but that doesn't constitute "reasonable suspicion" in the eyes of the law. Can you imagine an LEO telling the court that the basis for reasonable suspicion was the defendant's race/ethnicity? That should only occur when an LEO is stopping someone because they match the description of the suspect in a crime that just occurred.

Your statement was that DWB constituted reasonable suspicion. I asked for a court opinion to show that to be the case and you refer to traffic cases.

I'm sure (unfortunately) that certain LEO's are still bigoted in this manner, but that doesn't constitute "reasonable suspicion" in the eyes of the law. Can you imagine an LEO telling the court that the basis for reasonable suspicion was the defendant's race/ethnicity? That should only occur when an LEO is stopping someone because they match the description of the suspect in a crime that just occurred.

Unfortunately it is not just "certain LEOs" which are bigoted and willing to fabricate or otherwise arrive at "reasonable suspicion" or who knows what-else merely for a DWB target on the road or for a FWB target in an airline/airport context.

Came through JFK T4/A in June and I tried pulling out my DHS ID in place of my passport to see if one of them would say anything but nothing happened.

Came through JFK T4/A in June and I tried pulling out my DHS ID in place of my passport to see if one of them would say anything but othing happened.
As I understand it, the real requirement isn't that the ID be one of the listed ones, but rather that it meet all of the following criteria:

(1) Issued by a government agency.
(2) Have a picture.
(3) Contain name, gender, and date of birth.
(4) Have an expiration date.
(5) Have a fraud-prevention feature.

A DHS ID should meet all of the above.

As I understand it, the real requirement isn't that the ID be one of the listed ones, but rather that it meet all of the following criteria:

(1) Issued by a government agency.
(2) Have a picture.
(3) Contain name, gender, and date of birth.
(4) Have an expiration date.
(5) Have a fraud-prevention feature.

A DHS ID should meet all of the above.

Actually there are eight. You missed the date of issue. (Your #3 includes 3.)

Yes and no. The discussion is on pages 22-24. The court is saying that it's not going to rule on something not before it because nobody has actually been detained for this purpose, but, in my opinion, it's sending a very strong signal that if a case came before it where somebody was detained in such a circumstance for other than the very briefest of times, it would rule that such was "unreasonable".

I really hope you're right. However, words like "unreasonable" don't have a clear legal definition, so there is a lot of latitude, and I don't see the court setting a firm time limit of, say, 30 minutes.
Of course an overnight detention would be unreasonable, but beyond that type of extreme situation, I'm not sure they will intervene.


Also, I disagree that "showing ID is the only way of explicitly proving legal presence" for two reasons. First, showing ID does not prove legal presence, but merely creates a presumption of legal presence. Secondly, the statement that a presumption exists does not imply the converse: there's no presumption that a person not presenting ID is not legally in the state.

That is true, but the text of the law only mentions one method to create a presumption of legal presence, and that is by showing ID. If one is unable to do so, then the officer is permitted to make a "reasonable attempt" to determine status, including a (thus far unlimited in duration) detention.


In other words, while there is no explicit requirement to carry or show ID, anyone not doing so could potentially face a lot of hassle without having done anything wrong. This is the first time that such a situation has been created in the United States.

As I understand it, the real requirement isn't that the ID be one of the listed ones, but rather that it meet all of the following criteria:

(1) Issued by a government agency.
(2) Have a picture.
(3) Contain name, gender, and date of birth.
(4) Have an expiration date.
(5) Have a fraud-prevention feature.

A DHS ID should meet all of the above.
Indeed it does. However, I was heading out to SE Asia on SQ25. I also noticed there were two additional TSOs standing in line before reaching TDC merely looking at documents for some reason. I'll guess it's to make sure the pax isn't the selected one or at the wrong checkpoint (the other going to B gates). Regardless, it's a complete waste of two TSOs if you asked me.

Indeed it does. However, I was heading out to SE Asia on SQ25. I also noticed there were two additional TSOs standing in line before reaching TDC merely looking at documents for some reason. I'll guess it's to make sure the pax isn't the selected one or at the wrong checkpoint (the other going to B gates). Regardless, it's a complete waste of two TSOs if you asked me.

But we already know that the TSA is merely a make-work program, don't we? There are always tons of TSOs standing around even while the lines are crazy-- instead of opening up new lanes they just chit chat. Methinks there needs to be some performance metrics put in place...

I present it since 2009, and it has never been refused at airports. By the way, I present it for both domestic and international travel, and so far no problems.

The same exact TSO at SJU who somehow still has a job is the only person to refuse it. I'm at the point now that if I see her, I just walk to a different concourse.

arguing with a TSO over some ID to look cool and have a moment of self-importance. Unreal....
Actually, I do it for a moment of self-respect.
I have heard that TSO's receive bonuses for any "finds" of criminal behavior they might run across at the checkpoint. Can this be confirmed? If this is true, it would explain a lot of the over-reaching behaviors of the screeners... inspecting papers, wallet contents, etal... Even if their ~primary~ tasks are to prevent IED's and threats from getting into the sterile area, if there is a financial motivation for finding more than IED's and other actual threats, more will be sought, likely to the detriment of the primary purpose of TSA's presence.Can't recall the case, but there was definitely one where the fact that the TSO received bonuses was one reason that a TSO searched through an envelope, she admitted in testimony that she didn't think there were WEI in the envelope, and that the bonuses were the reason she did the search... I think that was the case that ended the formal referral bonus program. I'll see if I can find the ref and update this post.
My guess is that you'd have to present ID to CBP solely as a law enforcement officer, just as you would if the police asked to view ID (even as a driver, you could lawfully hold up your operator's license to the closed window of a car and be in compliance with that one), but I too find nothing that states that you must present a passport to CBP, and especially TSA.
Texas is not a stop-and-identify state. In general, a police officer can't force you to show ID without arresting you here.
I submitted the following question on TSA.gov.When flying internationally, can a TSO demand that you show your passport as ID instead of, say, a driver's license? Or would a driver's license suffice when presenting boarding pass and ID, even if flying internationally?
The reply --It is not a requirement that one has to present a U.S. Passport when traveling internationally, however there is nothing to say that a TSO can't request to see another form of ID such as a Passport either. Generally, the Passport is the most often used form of ID by those traveling internationally.

Having said that, please be aware that airlines are responsible for verifying that a passenger carries a valid Passport for international travel and most airlines will either verify prior to issuing a boarding pass, or when presenting the boarding pass at the boarding gate.
I don't know why this infuriates me more than so many other things that TSA does. I guess because it's such a blatant and public attempt to mislead. "There is nothing to say a TSO can't request to see another form of ID" is to me a form of intimidation to prevent you from standing up to a TSO, and a form of doublespeak to conceal the truth that there are limits to the TSA's power. I wish you could have responded, "Well, there's nothing to stop a TSO from requesting to see me stand on one leg and bark like a dog... I was trying to ask if I have any legal obligation to show a passport to a TSO when they request it in lieu of the valid ID I presented."

Actually there are eight. You missed the date of issue. (Your #3 includes 3.)
Are you sure? Global Entry (and, I think, NEXUS) doesn't have a date of issue.

I really hope you're right. However, words like "unreasonable" don't have a clear legal definition, so there is a lot of latitude, and I don't see the court setting a firm time limit of, say, 30 minutes.
Nor do I. The way I read that decision, there would be cases where 30 minutes is unreasonably long and others where the standard would be much longer. I'd argue that the threshold is likely to be determined as a percentage of the necessary detention for its original purpose. In other words, if a detention, but for this provision, would only have lasted five minutes, extending it another five might well be viewed as unreasonable. But if the detention would have been six hours, extending it for another hour might not be viewed as unreasonable.

That is true, but the text of the law only mentions one method to create a presumption of legal presence, and that is by showing ID. If one is unable to do so, then the officer is permitted to make a "reasonable attempt" to determine status, including a (thus far unlimited in duration) detention.
Yes, but see the above. I don't believe the Supreme Court is likely to give Arizona much leeway here given their language.

In other words, while there is no explicit requirement to carry or show ID, anyone not doing so could potentially face a lot of hassle without having done anything wrong. This is the first time that such a situation has been created in the United States.
I don't think that's the case. Isn't the situation at inland CBP checkpoints similar?

Are you sure? Global Entry (and, I think, NEXUS) doesn't have a date of issue.

My Global Entry card has a date of issue on the back, top left corner.

Are you sure? Global Entry (and, I think, NEXUS) doesn't have a date of issue.

Just checked my NEXUS. It is on the back.

> ... NEXUS) doesn't have a date of issue.

Incorrect. On the back, top-left ...

Wrong. Reasonable suspicion is a legal standard. It must be based on "specific and articulable facts taken together with rational inferences from those facts," (US v Terry)...

It's not U.S. v. Terry. The correct citation is Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1. (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?q=Terry+v.+Ohio,+392+U.S.+1&hl=en&as_sdt=2,5&case=17773604035873288886&scilh=0)

It's not U.S. v. Terry. The correct citation is Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1. (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?q=Terry+v.+Ohio,+392+U.S.+1&hl=en&as_sdt=2,5&case=17773604035873288886&scilh=0)

my bad - of course it is. :o

Nor do I. The way I read that decision, there would be cases where 30 minutes is unreasonably long and others where the standard would be much longer. I'd argue that the threshold is likely to be determined as a percentage of the necessary detention for its original purpose. In other words, if a detention, but for this provision, would only have lasted five minutes, extending it another five might well be viewed as unreasonable. But if the detention would have been six hours, extending it for another hour might not be viewed as unreasonable.

That's fine if the person has been detained for another reason. As noted above, however, this applies to anyone the police have lawful contact with. The real question for lower courts to sort out will be how long of a detention is reasonable for someone who is not being arrested or detained for anything else. In this case, they will need to set a time limit in order for the word "reasonable" to mean anything.


Yes, but see the above. I don't believe the Supreme Court is likely to give Arizona much leeway here given their language.

I guess you just have more faith in the Supreme Court than I do.


I don't think that's the case. Isn't the situation at inland CBP checkpoints similar?

My experience has been that only drivers are asked for their licenses, at least at San Clemente. Are there reports on FT of passengers being detained at these checkpoints for lack of ID?

That's fine if the person has been detained for another reason. As noted above, however, this applies to anyone the police have lawful contact with.
My use of the word "detained" was meant to include things such as Terry stops.

The real question for lower courts to sort out will be how long of a detention is reasonable for someone who is not being arrested or detained for anything else. In this case, they will need to set a time limit in order for the word "reasonable" to mean anything.
I still believe the limit will be in terms of the length of the stop. The way the opinion was worded reads that way to me. So if a stop would have lasted five minutes, increasing it to ten would be unreasonable.