Djlawman

I don't know enough about chemistry to know how hard it would be to prepare TATP or PLX or a peroxide based liquid bomb, or some other attempt at a liquid explosive.

My point is that if the governmental agencies who have the duty of watching out for such risks have concluded that a liquid ban is the preferred means of attempting to safeguard against such threats, I don't see any federal judge being willing to say "Oh, No, FBI and TSA and Homeland Security, I think you got it wrong. I think my judgment on these things is better than yours, and I think the liquid ban is not sufficiently justified, and I am therefore enjoining the TSA and HS from enforcing it."

And I suspect they have made a decision as to what is most efficacious based upon the difficulties of testing each liquid which comes through the checkpoint as well. Do you really want to advocate a system where everyone has to uncap or open every liquid and have it tested with some probe, or put some into a machine to be analyzed? Can you imagine the screening lines?

Because I am also sure OP is not going to be able to convince a federal judge that TSA should be ordered to just take the word of the passengers as to what is in their carryon liquids.

Does the OP really think that something like that is going to happen as a result of some lawsuit?

chollie

I think there's one public data point that might be important in this discussion - in particular, because there's likely a lot of supporting data that we don't currently have access to.

Kip Hawley, former head of TSA, said years ago that there was no need for the liquids ban, we have ways of safely and expeditiously allowing liquids. In fact, he said the liquids ban was unnecessary while he was still the boss.

http://http://www.motherjones.com/ke...-bottled-water

(apologies to anyone who doesn't like motherjones. Hawley's comments are in a book he wrote and in a WSJ piece that is behind a firewall and I can't seem to access directly. The issue has been discussed elsewhere in this forum).

petaluma1

[QUOTE=Djlawman;26173642]I don't know enough about chemistry to know how hard it would be to prepare TATP or PLX or a peroxide based liquid bomb, or some other attempt at a liquid explosive.

My point is that if the governmental agencies who have the duty of watching out for such risks have concluded that a liquid ban is the preferred means of attempting to safeguard against such threats, I don't see any federal judge being willing to say "Oh, No, FBI and TSA and Homeland Security, I think you got it wrong. I think my judgment on these things is better than yours, and I think the liquid ban is not sufficiently justified, and I am therefore enjoining the TSA and HS from enforcing it."

IMO, DHS/TSA makes a mockery of its liquids limitations by throwing away all confiscated liquids into a single trash can. If they are so concerned about liquid explosives then they should be serious about not mixing them all in one trash barrel and find another way to dispose of confiscated liquids, gels and whatever.

Sai needs to find an expert to make a mockery of TSA's disposal procedures.

Kremmen

I doubt it too, but it would be nice. Governments (and their agencies) are often in the business of pretending to be doing something useful and of frightening the community in order to maintain control. Judges are interested in facts. Maybe the facts, including data on all the other countries which don't implement any liquid restrictions at all on domestic flights (and have had zero liquid bomb problems) might lead a judge to conclude that the TSA and Homeland Security are just making stuff up to induce FUD.

BSBD

Which countries are those?

Kremmen

I've never looked to see which ones follow the US silliness. Most other countries I travel domestically in have no liquids limits in that context. Japan, Malaysia, Australia and New Zealand for example. However (possibly like most travellers) I usually just carry the same bag of liquids with me all the time anyhow, so I generally don't need to care and may not notice. I wonder if there's a list somewhere?

Himeno

A number of checkpoints in Japan have bottle scanners which they will put drink bottles/cans into for scanning. No need to open the bottle.

saizai

I wouldn't call 70% concentrate hydrogen peroxide readily available. But in any case, it's easily detectable using ETD and LCS, which is the point.

Do you really think I don't know what an expert witness is for? I am not one and am not intending to be.

From what I've read from actual chemists who've synthesized the stuff, I think it isn't, because it's patently absurd to think that someone could synthesize it en route in ways sufficient to damage the plane or others, without getting caught or just hurting themselves but not others. That's my inexpert opinion.

The TSA gets deference to its determination that testing for TATP & HMTD precursors is justified. Fine.

But that's not in fact what the policy is. The policy is that
1. TSA refuses to test liquids that have been properly presented for screening, unless it first makes a medical determination of the necessity of the kind and quantity of the liquid presented.
2. TSA refuses to allow people to travel with more than an amount of liquid it deems necessary, even if it has been tested as safe.

That's the heart of the challenge. Neither of them is justified by a deference to administrative determinations about the possible danger of liquid explosives.

I'm not saying that TSA shouldn't screen liquids. They can do so if they want, and set whatever silly thresholds for waiving that screening they want. That's fine by me.

What I'm saying is just that they should have to screen your liquids, and that if your liquids aren't dangerous, you have the right to go through with them regardless of quantity.

None of that requires an individualized Rehab Act determination. TSA isn't legally capable of doing so. Even asking whether something is medical or not is a violation of the 4th Amendment & Rehab Act — let alone demanding details of why, what, how much, prescriptions, etc — because whether or not it's medical has nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not it's dangerous.

There is only one exception I can think of: medically necessary but actually dangerous items, like oxygen canisters. That would require a different policy, demonstrating necessity and provisions for safety. And indeed, it did even back in the FAA regulation days.

1. Transparent containers don't need to be uncapped. LCS machines screen them in about 15 seconds, without being opened.
2. Non-transparent containers don't need to be uncapped either. They are swabbed for explosive traces. Takes about 30 seconds.
3. Containers that are opened are not "probed". They hold a collection swab above it (again, for gas-borne traces) and test that. Again, 30 seconds.

I know the timings because I've had all three variants happen with my own liquids when they obey the rules. Apparently you never have.

And yes: if you want to travel with your water bottle, then if TSA chooses, they can make you spend the extra 30s to get it screened. If you don't want the extra time, you can ditch it. They can have separate "family / liquids" lanes, like they already do, to expedite screening for people with less stuff. I am 100% fine with all of that.

If it is merely a question of a minor burden of time or cost to the government to conduct a proper search that is requested, and it's feasible for them to do it, then the 4th Amendment says they have to.

Also please note that here you're switching to a legally very different argument — not WEI detection (which gets substantial deference), but merely time savings (which does not).

I think you'd agree that if it gets judged based on a defense not that there is any security need for the policy, but merely that they don't want to use the screening they have available because it takes a little extra time, it's a very different case.

Quite the opposite! My claim is that my word about what's in it is completely irrelevant.

Therefore, questioning me when they have objective testing methods (ETD, LCS, xray, etc) is illegal, because it simply has no bearing on the legitimate objectives of the administrative search for WEI.

BSBD

I'm pretty sure the countries you mentioned constitute the "list." Maybe there's one or two more outliers, but almost everywhere else in the world, countries have liquid restrictions. Keep in mind that it's not just "US silliness." The UK was the first to ban liquids, and the rest of the EU quickly followed suit.

I think it would be very difficult to convince a US judge that four countries on the other side of the world should be used to set US security policy, especially when their domestic air travel is minimal compared to the US and the EU.

Djlawman

I fully understand your arguments. I just think you are dreaming if you think that any federal judge is going to direct the TSA and HS to enforce a liquids policy the way YOU want it to be enforced, rather than the way that the government agency has decided they are going to enforce it. It's like going into court and asking a judge to tell a municipality to stop putting a speed trap on Green Street because you know it would do more good to put it on Grand Avenue. (or asking him to order the municipality to put more officers on foot patrol -- because you believe that will cut down on crime). Or telling a judge that your speed trap stop on Green Street should be found illegal because the better use of the enforcement resources would have been to put them on Grand Avenue. And I don't think it's going to matter if you have an expert witness who says that you are right, that a liquids policy could be enforced in some other fashion.

Not going to happen.

But feel free to have at it. I'll be happy to eat crow if you prove me incorrect, but I sincerely doubt there is much risk of that.

Indeed, if you can provide a large enough retainer, I am sure that you can probably find lawyers who would take the case, even with what I believe to be extremely limited chances of success. (Heck, for a LARGE enough retainer, I am sure my law firm will take the case.)

saizai

Then could you please rebut the argument I gave, rather than the strawman arguments you portray as if they were mine?

I'm just trying to require that they screen liquids presented, without medical interrogation, and that if it is cleared w/ screening, it should go through.

I'm not trying to dictate how they should screen liquids. ETD, LCS, Ouija board, whatever… they're free to pick. I'm not trying to dictate what they think is worth screening. 3.4 oz bottles in a quart bag, 1 pint in a bong bowl, pies and snowglobes… again, they're entirely free to pick what they screen.

So what's your argument that TSA should be allowed to refuse to screen liquids that they can screen, or that they should be allowed to prevent people from flying with liquids that have actually been cleared by screening? (Both have happened to me.)

Carl Johnson

All right then! All the government has to do is point to the planes lost in those countries due to in-flight explosions, and move for summary judgment.

sethb

You should be aware that sarcasm doesn't play on the net.

Superguy

To the OP:

In my travels last week:

BWI 2/7, about 500a: Went thru the B Gates Pre-Check. Nothing indicating mandatory AIT and no opt out. Wasn't selected for additional screening.

ELP 2/13, about 1100a. Used Pre-check again. Went thru and hit the lottery for the NoS. I told them I have a bad shoulder and I can't hold my arm up. I was sent thru the WTMD again and just had my hands swabbed. Only question asked was a confirmation that I couldn't hold arm up. No grief. Did not see signs seeing NoS was mandatory.

Hope those data points help.

eyecue

You are not correct in your assumption.