The blog is already a laughingstock. Perhaps the TSA thinks that having this bimbo answer questions will keep the passengers laughing?
I'm surprised TSA has let the blog run as long as it has. If I had any control over it, i would have canned it long ago - and especially after Blogger Bob's "tinfoil hat" reference.
I'm surprised TSA has let the blog run as long as it has. If I had any control over it, i would have canned it long ago - and especially after Blogger Bob's "tinfoil hat" reference.
With comments like that, Blogdad Bob sounds like he's really sick of it all. Maybe they're hoping it will just run down?
And Kelly Mae and William Reed, having demonstrated that they unquestioningly believe everything they're told, could do well selling junk products on late night TV.
__________________ When a stupid man is doing something he is ashamed of, he always declares that it is his duty. - George Bernard Shaw
With comments like that, Blogdad Bob sounds like he's really sick of it all. Maybe they're hoping it will just run down?
And Kelly Mae and William Reed, having demonstrated that they unquestioningly believe everything they're told, could do well selling junk products on late night TV.
Well, with Billy Mays' untimely passing, there is an opening....
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.
Do you offer private screening as an option or do you require the traveler to go to a private screening.
Remember, Steven Bierfeldt belongings were taken by the TSO and he was ordered to follow to the closed screening room. In my mind this would equate to being detained since he was not offered a choice in the matter.
Offering to do something that might afford privacy would be a nice gesture but only if the person being screened has a say in the decision.
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.
Besides Bob, Lynn and Nico seem to be the other Blog Ops. They just apparently do little to support the blog.
Of course after Nico claimed that the Strip Search Machine images were ok for young children to view he has kept his participation very low.
That seems typical for TSA types, make a claim then hide when called to support the claim.
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.
What if the pax involved does not want to go to a private area? Would you take their property and disappear with it?
Originally Posted by TSORon
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."
I wonder if TSORon knows how to say "I made a mistake."
Are you saying that, under normal circumstances, a seizure becomes unreasonable after 45 minutes?
SCOTUS rulings don't really give us a hard and fast time limit, unfortunately. Looking at the totality of the rulings thus far, 45 minutes is in the realm of "pushing the limit".
The general rule for a traffic stop is the limit is the amount of time needed to write a traffic citation. In New York, that limit is now about five minutes given the laptops scanners and printers in every patrol car. Police have been smacked down for holding people for hours waiting for a drug dog to become available.
West Virginia found a way around that for a while -- impound the vehicle and leave the occupants stranded on the side of the road.
__________________ Department of Homeland Security sounds better in the original German: Heimatsicherheitsministerium
