Bob had posted he was sick and with a holiday weekend he may be taking some extra time off. After Kelly Mae I don't think anyone other than Bob should be trusted to vet updates.
If only the TSA had access to a machine you could put objects into and X-ray them!
Tom M. FTW!!
TSORon - Since the envelopes in question had already been through the X-ray and CLEARED, the screener had NO JUSTIFICATION for opening and searching them - she ALREADY KNEW that they did not contain anything which could legitimately be a threat to the plane, passengers, or crew. Her illegal opening of them was a fishing expedition, nothing more.
the only concern i have is that the case gets tossed on a technicality along the lines that bierfeldt conducted an "illegal recording" as there was no warrant issued and then his recording gets tossed. remember linda tripp?
I don't know the law where this occurred, but the law in NC is essentially "If one party in the conversation knows that they are being recorded, then it is a legal recording". In this case, the recording would be legal due to the fact that Bierfeldt knew he was being recorded (as he was the one conducting the recording). I do not know if this is the case in St louis.
Since when was the TSA concerned with PAX belongings being secure? This was just a convenient place to intimidate Mr. Bierfeldt and hurl expletives at him outside of public scrutiny.
I will comment on this one, there have been several times when I have taken passengers into the private screening area (both at their request and as a safety concern of my own for the passenger) when they were transporting large amounts of jewelry, money, coins, even bullion and raw precious metal bars. I take them there so Joe the less than scrupulous passenger can't see what is in the bag, and so that there is less chance of them having trouble with said less than scrupulous passengers. The reason these items were taken to be cleared is they were dense enough to not be cleared on the Xray machine. That is standard practice for myself and this airport, I am not certain what is done at other airports. I can also tell you that I did the same thing in LAX and had plenty of support from the staff there (I pulled a 30 day stint at LAX). That is actually a standard response that is true in many cases.
TSORon - Since the envelopes in question had already been through the X-ray and CLEARED, the screener had NO JUSTIFICATION for opening and searching them - she ALREADY KNEW that they did not contain anything which could legitimately be a threat to the plane, passengers, or crew. Her illegal opening of them was a fishing expedition, nothing more.
Sorry to bust your uhh … bubble … here eric, but please re-read the PDF file on this. The passenger was a selectee, and the TSO was required to do a full search. Not illegal at all, and being a selectee is the only justification a TSO needs to do such a search. That search, at her discretion, can include the envelopes, if she is unsure about what is in them.
"The Court merely holds that where, as here, the evidence
demonstrates that the intrusiveness of a passenger's
search was ramped-up based on a desire to detect
evidence of ordinary criminal wrongdoing, after the
presence of weapons and explosives had been ruled
out, the search can no longer be justified under the
administrative search doctrine and suppression is
appropriate"
Sorry to bust your uhh … bubble … here eric, but please re-read the PDF file on this. The passenger was a selectee, and the TSO was required to do a full search. Not illegal at all, and being a selectee is the only justification a TSO needs to do such a search. That search, at her discretion, can include the envelopes, if she is unsure about what is in them.
The TSA declined to produce any evidence to that effect:
Quote:
[T]he Government failed to establish through evidence that opening the envelopes containing the passports was necessary to serve the programmatic purpose of an airport screening search, i.e., to unearth weapons or explosives. As already explained, the bulk of the evidence presented suggests that it was not. While it is conceivable that, as the Government argues, an envelope containing a passport-sized item might need to be opened, despite the use of other screening technologies, to detect a small prohibited item hidden inside, the Government has not supported that argument with evidence. For example, the TSA did not present, or submit for in camera review, SOPs or other regulations stating that all items, including nonbulky business-sized envelopes, must be opened as part of a secondary screening to ensure that there are no prohibited items are contained within.
They were even offered the opportunity to do so in private so as not to publish SOP:
Quote:
The Court is aware that the details of the TSA's screening procedures may be classified as “sensitive security information” (“SSI”) by the Under Secretary of the TSA pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 114(s)(1)(c) and 49 C.F.R. § 1520.5. The Court suggested during the suppression hearing, however, that any such materials could be submitted to the Court for an in-camera, ex parte review. (5/13/2009 Hr'g Tr. 27-28); See Gilmore, 435 F.3d at 1131 (ordering the TSA to submit SSI under seal for in camera, ex parte review of the relevant policy). The Government did not do so.
The court looked at the facts and found that she was looking for contraband and not weapons. The fact that your SOP says a screener is allowed to do something does not make that act constitutional. The SOP must stay within constitutional bounds, not the other way around.
Had she testified either that (1) she thought that there was a W/E/I in the envelopes or (2) that the TSA has a policy or procedure of opening every envelope in every selectee's bag, then the court would likely have ruled the other way. But she didn't-- and the court saw it for what it was-- a fishing expedition.
As Tom M. noted, "after the presence of weapons and explosives had been ruled out, the search can no longer be justified under the administrative search doctrine."
Bob had posted he was sick and with a holiday weekend he may be taking some extra time off. After Kelly Mae I don't think anyone other than Bob should be trusted to vet updates.
There are a few that moderate and "vet" the blog. KellieMae is merely a memebr of the team that comments and might be called upon to generate blog posts in the future.
I don't know the law where this occurred, but the law in NC is essentially "If one party in the conversation knows that they are being recorded, then it is a legal recording". In this case, the recording would be legal due to the fact that Bierfeldt knew he was being recorded (as he was the one conducting the recording). I do not know if this is the case in St louis.
The question was answered three posts down from the one you quoted:
Quote:
Originally Posted by ND Sol
Missouri does allow for recording in this instance. Linda Tripp was in Maryland, which is one of the 12 states that generally require consent by all.
__________________ We cannot defend freedom abroad by deserting it at home.
Just pondering; Bob mentioned having a severe headache the other day. Perhaps he's having some health issues.
Would not explain why one of the other Blog Ops couldn't do some updates unless they are not trusted to do so.
Perhaps the TSA Blog has come to its end.
I contacted Blogger Bob, he is fine. They have him tied up at conferences and his at home time has been filled with moving. I guess even a federal officer gets outranked when the wife wants something moved.
They really do need to get him some reliable help, I offered but I guess the TSA doesn't trust me.
Regarding the recording, I would assume that the lawyers at the ACLU and Alan Gura's firm looked into that issue before bringing the case. They tend to be pretty smart lawyers.
Programs: AA EXP/2MM, QF WP, DL PM, US Conscientious Objector, TED Boycotter, SPG PLT, TSA Disparager Diamond
Posts: 37,445
Quote:
Originally Posted by gsoltso
There are a few that moderate and "vet" the blog. KellieMae is merely a memebr of the team that comments and might be called upon to generate blog posts in the future.
The blog is already a laughingstock. Perhaps the TSA thinks that having this bimbo answer questions will keep the passengers laughing?
__________________
You cannot uphold American ideology with un-American actions. It's time for change.
