petaluma1

Sorry, 11/20/10, the day the infamous NOS went into effect for all travelers.

You're getting your pat downs mixed up. Above, you call the the private room pat down "enhanced" and but you called it "resolution" in another

The enhanced pat down is the "enhanced" version of the standard pat down.

http://blog.tsa.gov/2010/08/enhanced-pat-downs.html

On the subject of administrative searches, as I understand it once the ETD alarms, then any search becomes a probable cause search which the TSA is not allow to do. But good luck getting that before a court of law.

petaluma1

Had to take a call from the vet, so continuing:


http://boardingarea.com/flyingwithfi...own-authority/

As stated above, PL 107-71 does NOT authorize specific methods of passengers screening, contrary to what the TSA believes. In fact, the word "pat-down" is used only once in the entire document:

SeriouslyLost

There's at least a couple of ways to look at it, IMO.

The first is that yes, a positive result on a swab would be an articulable reason, but in that case it is no longer an administrative search and has become a probable cause search, in which case TSA is not able to conduct it as they are not sworn LE. I can see this one being a winning proposition in an airport, if a person has the time and inclination to force the issue.

A second way to consider it is that the regime under which TSA swabs is neither consistent or scientific. They routinely do not follow their own procedures, let alone good testing procedure, nor do they submit their machines for regular calibration and testing. All of which means the results of the swabs are likely inadmissible as evidence of...well, anything. Obviously, arguing that in an airport is likely to be a losing proposition.

Personally, if I have the time and didn't mind not travelling that day, then I would take the tack of asking if they are conducting an administrative search (and then refusing to have it done in private) or, if it is no longer an administrative search, refuse to have TSA conduct it and require my lawyer to be present. Either way, I'm going to make TSA's asinine procedure and flouting of the law as complicated and painful for them as possible.

Civil disobedience in the face of government lawlessness and illegal action is a moral imperative, IMO.

As an aside, the machines don't "trigger[...]for explosives". They trigger for nitrates and phosphates. Walk across a lawn in the midwest in summer and then have your shoes or lower half of your clothes swabbed and you'll more than likely trigger the machines. Rub your hands with potting mix or (I'm told) Miracle Grow and they'll probably trigger as well. The machines are pretty dumb, as are the operators, and as far as I'm aware the machines are never re-calibrated once they're installed.

nachtnebel

out of curiousity, how does this:

jibe with this:

and this?

How can these "tests" and this type of testing possibly qualify as even reasonable cause, much less probable cause?

SeriouslyLost

What TSA claims and acts upon may or may not bear much relationship to reality, IME. If you work on the assumption that they are making it up as they go along then you can pretty much predict how things will go. Contrast that with (my understanding of) the legal framework and you have two series that, at the best of times, only loosely approach other.


I should probably start including legal disclaimers now.

FliesWay2Much

When I read the definition of "probable cause" from Cornell Law School:

I cannot come up with the crime I believe is being committed or is about to be committed as a result of a positive indication from the TSA WMD machine. How does a clerk grabbing my crotch with the front of his hand result in a search for evidence of the crime I am bout to commit?

The answer is that there is no answer. Perhaps this is why Francine came up with "resolution patdown?" After all, it's just a continuation of the "administrative search." The only reason they demand that this be done out of the public eye is because they don't want the public witnessing it, let alone filming an posting it. They demand and receive compliance because they know we are obsessed with making our flights.

petaluma1

Did you mean to write WTMD instead of WMD or did you mean to write ETD?

I believe where "probable cause" kicks in is when the ETD alarms. You have traces of "explosives" on you; therefore, there is probable cause to believe that you might be getting ready to commit a crime, i.e., blow up an airplane, according to the TSA.

As I was typing this, I wondered if any clerk, after rubbing a passenger's clothing has had his/her gloves test positive for "explosives." Has anyone ever heard of that happening?

SeriouslyLost

I imagine the argument will run along the lines of "X tested positive for Explosives (tm) so now we're going to check more thoroughly for Explosives(tm)". (I admit I haven't checked to make sure, but I'm assuming there that explosives really are illegal to carry on an aircraft.)


I suspect that the reason it's called a "resolution pat down" is because that way they can claim it is not a probable cause search (which kicks it over to sworn LE) and TSA can still conduct it. They're essentially trying to maintain a legal, linguistic, and logical contradiction.

There's a reason IMO that TSA works so hard to keep cases out of court: they know full well that they'll be nailed to the wall by any competent counsel.

Blogndog

Can I request a private room, mood music, and a cocktail?

janetdoe

Every time I get an opt-out patdown, the clerk rubs my clothes and then swabs their gloves. So any time an opt-out patdown results in an ETD 'alarm', that is exactly what happened.

The one time one of my opt-out patdowns resulted in an ETD alarm, it was later determined to be the box of gloves causing the alarm. The clerk had to get a different box of gloves before her baseline check (from swabbing her own gloves before the patdown) was negative. The first clerk had neglected to do that test.

FliesWay2Much

You have to require/request/insist/demand (what ever level of dialogue it takes) to make sure the clerk tests a fresh set of gloves. Many will resist this and some will even threaten you. The correct time to make them change their gloves and test them is after the clerk carries your stuff to the groping location because the bins might be contaminated.

And you know they went right back to using that contaminated box of gloves after you were released.

janetdoe

Lol, I know that, but I never really bother. I've had probably 100 patdowns and this is the first one where it was an issue. I'm assuming the clerks on that shift avoided the box, most of them really don't like having to do the resolution patdowns.

Obviously they should throw away the box and keep a record of the false positives so they can stop ordering from that supplier. But my guess is more likely the box of gloves gets shoved to the back of the drawer, and after they age or get jostled a bit, whatever solvent or manufacturing residue that is triggering the alarm dissipates. Or not. <shrug>

Schmurrr

I got to experience this in San Diego less than an hour ago.

I opted out at the Terminal 2 checkpoint, and, post-grope, the swab of the TSA employee's gloves generated an ETD alarm. I asked her to redo the patdown using a pre-tested pair of gloves. She said she couldn't, since the procedure at that point is for a different TSA agent to do a more thorough patdown in a private screening area. I said I would not go to a private room. She said again that it was procedure. I repeated that I would not go to a private room, I pointed out that the ETD machine is known for generating false positives due to contaminated boxes of gloves, confusion of lotion with explosives, etc., and I had several hours before my flight to see this situation resolved. Another TSA employee present for this conversation told me that that false positives do not happen any more, now that the TSA has new ETD machines. (!) I said that cannot be correct, since the model of the machine has nothing to do with contaminated gloves. He told me that, if I didn't go to the private room, I would have to be searched by a LEO. I said he should go get the LEO, since the LEO would decide if there is probable cause for a search and the LEO would have no problems searching me in public. (LEO searches have to be defensible in court, too.) He asked if I was traveling alone. I said yes, and I insisted again that I would not go to a private room.

The second TSA employee then went to talk to a three-striper, and the three-striper decided that it was okay for me to get the second patdown in public. A third TSA employee came over to commence the second patdown. She put on new gloves, swabbed them, and inserted the swab in the ETD machine, and the machine malfunctioned. Random-seeming text and colors flashed all over the screen. She asked the first TSA employee if the machine had been down earlier; the first employee said she did not know. She then pushed the ETD machine into a cabinet and shut the cabinet doors. She went to test another pair of gloves at an adjacent ETD machine.

My second patdown was about the same as the first. It was a bit slower and more deliberate, and the second TSA employee checked the bottoms of my feet whereas the first TSA employee did not. She did not use the front of her hands on the "sensitive areas." Was this a true "resolution patdown"? I don't know, but I cleared it, and I didn't go to the private room and I was not ejected from the airport.

Overall, the TSA employees were actually pretty professional about all this. They pushed back at first, but they adjusted procedures in a reasonable way once they realized I was not going to give in about the private room. They didn't get angry or snippy either. I tried to be civil but resolute.

(FWIW, I saw TSA using a handheld metal detector on a man's turban.)

petaluma1

I certainly applaud you, Schmurrr for refusing to go to the private room. However, I wonder if the TSA relented because it was the screener's gloves that alarmed and not a swab of your hands. Had it been your hands, would they have insisted more strenuously that you go to the private room?

FliesWay2Much

I think they knew their machine was screwed up but had to further hassle you to "save face."