This story has grown legs, arms, tentacles, horns, and anything else you can think of. Up on Drudge right now with links to other stories. Seems like the TSO involved got his hands slapped by management for being a total Kip.
No sport it is not the view of anarchist and your reply makes you sound like a simpleton. If you don't like the way you are treated at your job you have a choice, including finding another job. Its never easy finding a new job and plenty of people do it.
Actually, I'm treated quite well on the floor and in the office by passengers, fellow officers, airline employees, airport employees and police officers. It's a very enjoyable and rewarding job. The only flak I get is in here with the disgruntled, miserable people like yourself who naively believe they are speaking on behalf of a silent majority.
The only flak I get is in here with the disgruntled, miserable people like yourself who naively believe they are speaking on behalf of a silent majority.
So why bother coming over here where you don't get the respect you apparently feel that you warrent?
So why bother coming over here where you don't get the respect you apparently feel that you warrent?
Perhaps Bart has a masochistic bent but I can tell you that he has been posting here for 6 years and has earned the respect of many of us (myself included).
I see from your profile that you joined two months ago. It will be interesting to see if your reputation on FlyerTalk is as solid as his is six years down the road.
Perhaps Bart has a masochistic bent but I can tell you that he has been posting here for 6 years and has earned the respect of many of us (myself included).
I see from your profile that you joined two months ago. It will be interesting to see if your reputation on FlyerTalk is as solid as his is six years down the road.
Hmmm, six years ago was traveling as part of my job and getting used to the lifestyle of a field service technician. At that time had I known this site existed, would have been over here as well. Live and learn. We'll see if the economy holds up and I live through experience.
Programs: US former CP Looking for a new airline to love me
Posts: 1,145
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dovster
Perhaps Bart has a masochistic bent but I can tell you that he has been posting here for 6 years and has earned the respect of many of us (myself included).
I see from your profile that you joined two months ago. It will be interesting to see if your reputation on FlyerTalk is as solid as his is six years down the road.
Does that respect include the 100's of his historical posts he went back and deleted in one of the more bizarre acts I've seen on FT in some time?
Care to explain that, cupcakes?
So why bother coming over here where you don't get the respect you apparently feel that you warrent?
I'm not looking for respect. I'm looking for an even playing field. Ask me just about any question regarding screening and I will do my best to give you a helpful answer.
In recent years, this forum has degraded into nothing more than just a TSA-bashing playground. The sad part is that it caters only to a very few number of forum members. I've met a number of members in person, and every single encounter was an enjoyable one, so I'm pretty confident when I say that a disgruntled few have hijacked the forum. I went away for about a year hoping things would improve (and to cool off since I was letting my emotions drive my responses), and I see that not much has changed. That's too bad because there used to be a lot of great exchanges in here.
Back on topic: I, too, am looking for clarification from this court case not just regarding $10 k in carry-ons but the whole criminal suspicion vs. prohibited items relationship. Makes sense to me that if I come across a baggie containing an unknown substance that the LEO should get involved. Not because I think it might be drugs, but because I don't know what it is and need additional resources to help determine whether or not it can be cleared for transport. If it happens to be drugs, then the LEO will take over.
The problem arises with large amounts of cash. I don't see why TSA should bother notifying the LEO in these instances. I do see why a TSO should notify an STSO: get a witness on-hand immediately for the passenger's and officer's protection. It's the smart thing to do. But to get panties in a wad because it may be excess cash in violation of international flight regulations goes beyond the scope of looking for prohibited items.
Does that respect include the 100's of his historical posts he went back and deleted in one of the more bizarre acts I've seen on FT in some time?
Care to explain that, cupcakes?
I have no idea of what you are talking about, jellydonuts, but he still has 5,265 posts remaining.
Back on topic: I, too, am looking for clarification from this court case not just regarding $10 k in carry-ons but the whole criminal suspicion vs. prohibited items relationship. Makes sense to me that if I come across a baggie containing an unknown substance that the LEO should get involved. Not because I think it might be drugs, but because I don't know what it is and need additional resources to help determine whether or not it can be cleared for transport. If it happens to be drugs, then the LEO will take over.
The problem arises with large amounts of cash. I don't see why TSA should bother notifying the LEO in these instances. I do see why a TSO should notify an STSO: get a witness on-hand immediately for the passenger's and officer's protection. It's the smart thing to do. But to get panties in a wad because it may be excess cash in violation of international flight regulations goes beyond the scope of looking for prohibited items.
We'll see what happens.
Agreed. Awaiting the decision of the courts as well.
Programs: US former CP Looking for a new airline to love me
Posts: 1,145
Back, sort of, to the original topic
At the risk of oversimplifying, most of the facts in this and a few similar cases seem obvious.
TSA can only initiate administrative searches.
Courts have consistently held that administrative searches are limited in scope to that which the search is designed to do.
Discovery of a large sum of cash, results in reference of the airline passenger to an LEO, who can then initiate a far more intrusive search, with a warrant if need be.
Seems obvious that, because of an erroneous TSA administrative order, TSA HQ is forcing an administrative search to have a criminal search result, for something that has nothing to do with the focus of the admin search. This is effectively a back door approach; using an administrative search for fishing purposes.
I would think that the conclusion here is going to be obvious and pre-ordained, the only question is how will the court grant relief and how far reaching will it be. This is where the skill of the ACLU's lawyers will be well worth watching and learning from.
At the risk of oversimplifying, most of the facts in this and a few similar cases seem obvious.
TSA can only initiate administrative searches.
Courts have consistently held that administrative searches are limited in scope to that which the search is designed to do.
Discovery of a large sum of cash, results in reference of the airline passenger to an LEO, who can then initiate a far more intrusive search, with a warrant if need be.
Seems obvious that, because of an erroneous TSA administrative order, TSA HQ is forcing an administrative search to have a criminal search result, for something that has nothing to do with the focus of the admin search. This is effectively a back door approach; using an administrative search for fishing purposes.
I would think that the conclusion here is going to be obvious and pre-ordained, the only question is how will the court grant relief and how far reaching will it be. This is where the skill of the ACLU's lawyers will be well worth watching and learning from.
That probably makes sense without the benefit of knowing the SOP. Actually, prohibited items remain the trigger for all searches by TSOs. It's when large amounts of cash incidental to the search for prohibited items that things get tricky.
I'm also curious what will come out of this with regards to "detention." TSA cannot detain anyone. However, we can deny people access into the sterile area. Big difference.
I know how it plays out in a custodial and non-custodial interrogation. I don't think it applies here, but there should be a similar rationale.
So, how many posts have I deleted today? Do I need your permission to delete more?
This story has grown legs, arms, tentacles, horns, and anything else you can think of. Up on Drudge right now with links to other stories. Seems like the TSO involved got his hands slapped by management for being a total Kip.
The TSO involved was just flat out wrong and should have been fired the moment this came to the attention of TSA management. In the CNN article was this:
"The TSA says disciplinary action has been taken against one of its employees for inappropriate tone and language."
Sounds like very little action was taken.
The LEO's involved should know the basics of law and should be charged under the criminal code for violating this persons rights. Then let a jury decide their fates.
TSA has no valid reason to ever question why person is transporting an item that dos not pose a threat to aviation.
I hope the ACLU hands the TSA a crippling loss on this point.
Actually, I'm treated quite well on the floor and in the office by passengers, fellow officers, airline employees, airport employees and police officers. It's a very enjoyable and rewarding job. The only flak I get is in here with the disgruntled, miserable people like yourself who naively believe they are speaking on behalf of a silent majority.
I'm only speaking for myself, perhaps you should stop trying to speak on behalf of the TSA. If you can't handle disgruntled people here why bother posting?
