Your credibility continues to deteriorate with comments like this. Just being truthful here, pal.
I'm not your "pal," Bart.
And Bart, I've worked with your attorneys. Personally. Have you?
Other than a few exceptions, they are among the least talented attorneys I've ever had the misfortune to run across. Including Francine. No attorney with any common sense would publicly admit to using Google as a source.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bart
I don't know if it's realistic to expect TSA to have an academy similar to the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center in Glynco. Still, you've accidentally stumbled into agreement with me that training could certainly be improved. What you've omitted is that the private security company training standard prior to TSA was woefully inadequate. In fact, it was a joke. But for you to post that comparison would require you to be objective, and that goes against the grain of your little anti-TSA campaign.
Oh, so when someone agrees with you, we've "stumbled" into it?
Bart, you are the last person who ought to be challenging anyone's credibility.
I never said TSO's ought to be trained to the level of a real LEO.
Just how were the private security standards "woefully inadequate?"
Other than a few exceptions, they are among the least talented attorneys I've ever had the misfortune to run across. Including Francine. No attorney with any common sense would publicly admit to using Google as a source.
Whoah! Really? Google? As an attorney, that's jaw droppingly shocking to hear an attorney admit to using google as a source. In no way could it be a source cuz it's just a search engine. It's more removed as a source then Wikipedia is. While it's not a great source or piece of evidence cuz of how it's edited, at least you could argue that Wiki counts as a "source".
Programs: CO Platinum, SPG Platinum, HH Gold - whatever that's worth now :(
Posts: 12,493
Quote:
Originally Posted by monster
I have a very basic question about all of this. If I'm walking down the street, and someone sees that I have something that might be illegal, they are perfectly free to summon a LEO to investigate. However, do they actually have any right to detain me pending the arrival of said LEO, or am I free to walk away?
If I'm free to walk away, than what right does the TSA have to detain me if they've already cleared me of having any prohibited items? Can't I just walk away at that point?
Yes, you can pick up your stuff and just walk away. The 'rules' say you must complete the screening process, but since the TSA cannot force you to do anything, it's just a matter of getting your stuff and getting out of there before a cop shows up. No law states you must complete the screening process - just some made-up gibberish from the TSA they like to peddle as 'law'.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TSORon
The courts have also upheld that if a TSO/LEO finds an illegal item or substance incidental to the search for a specific item then it is allowed as evidence in any criminal court proceedings. .
The courts have been dead wrong on this, and the case pertaining to this thread is a step in the right direction to fix this problem.
Eventually this glaring issue will be fixed and a legal firewall will go up between an administrative search and a criminal search, preventing one from turning into another without consent.
You're continued focus on pushing your 'right' to hunt for cash, drugs, porn, whatever is rather disturbing since you don't seem as passionate about finding bombs and guns. Again, you're not a cop - I suggest you stop pretending to play one at the checkpoint and restrain your focus to where it should be exclusively - finding items which are a germane threat to aviation security. Period.
__________________ Rich and 50 is the same as middle-class and 30
Programs: UA-1k, HH Silver, Giving Tootsie Pops to UA employees, & now a retired hockey goalie
Posts: 10,128
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bart
Brave words. Stooopid. But brave words.
Here's what you need to consider, tough guy. All a police officer would understand is that you walked away towards the sterile area without being properly cleared by airport security screening procedures. The police officer will respond accordingly.
Roll that dice, cupcake. Let us know how it turns out.
but what if "cupcake" decides to leave/exit the terminal vs attempting to enter the sterile area without being properly screened? either before or after putting their "bags on the belt" (or whatever the demarcation line is for "consenting to the search")
__________________
just my humble opinion but i used to try and stop hockey pucks so what do i know . Nighthawks fans are everywhere
Whoah! Really? Google? As an attorney, that's jaw droppingly shocking to hear an attorney admit to using google as a source. In no way could it be a source cuz it's just a search engine. It's more removed as a source then Wikipedia is. While it's not a great source or piece of evidence cuz of how it's edited, at least you could argue that Wiki counts as a "source".
Yes, Francine did do that. And what made it more egregious was the fact that the item she was trying to define using Google was already defined in the CFR.
__________________ We cannot defend freedom abroad by deserting it at home.
Here's what you need to consider, tough guy. All a police officer would understand is that you walked away towards the sterile area without being properly cleared by airport security screening procedures. The police officer will respond accordingly.
Roll that dice, cupcake. Let us know how it turns out.
Perfect example of why I treat TSA workfare force with such contempt, yall are the most unprofessional, uncouth and rude agency in the government and needs to be nuked, buried in concrete and never resurrected. Not to mention TSA is more despised then the IRS.
Oh nice challenge but you crapped out as the last person that attempted to detain/restrain me got 90 days(instead of the 2-5 years they originally went for) in jail and is serving 15 years of supervised probation. Additionally they lost there professional credentials and have no usable function of there left arm due to there own stupidity and struggling when i reversed out of there attempt to grab me and put them in a submission hold on the ground till a leo cuffed the punk. Trust me if it happens again the results will be the same as I may look unassuming but never under estimate anyone as that's a very bad assumption that will cost you dearly. Next time Im at SAT i will be sure to stop by and look for you and will see who the cupcake is.
The line is crossed when the TSO uses the administrative search as a guise for a law enforcement search. For example, a police officer suspects that a passenger may be carrying illegal drugs and requests that a TSO conduct a "random search" that specifically targets that passenger. Then it becomes an improper search by the TSO, and any evidence discovered will most likely be thrown out.
That's indeed one way.
Quote:
The thin line is intent. If the TSO's intent was to look for a prohibited item, then the search is good.
Not necessarily. See below.
Quote:
The screwy part comes from items, such as cash in excess of $10 k or drugs. As I've posted before, this appears to be confusing for some supervisors and officers. Personally, I don't understand why it should be confusing.
I see three cases and I think we can all agree on the first two.
The first case is if something is in plain view and is definitely illegal. Let's say that a bag check is called for a legitimate reason, the TSO opens the bag, and sees a photo of a young girl having sex. Everybody agrees it's perfectly legitimate to refer that to an LEO.
The second case is if a bag contains a notebook. The TSO not only leafs through it to ensure it's just paper, but starts reading it and is able to discover that this is the diary of another Madoff. Again, clearly illegal, but I think we all agree that reading the material is outside the bounds of the search, so the evidence can't be used.
Where things get tricky is when the item that's in plain view is not evidence of a crime, but evidence that a crime might have occurred. Let's make this even stronger by supposing that the item would have been sufficient to generate "reasonable suspicion" if it were seen in the open by a LEO as part of a traffic stop, but here only was revealed as part of an administrative search. Examples of such items are baggies of white substances, large quantities of cash, multiple identification cards, large quantities of CD's, nude photos of teenages, and other similar items. These might represent illegal activities, but all have legitimate and legal explanations as well.
We're now in the following position: the clearly legitimate portion of the administrative search has completed and nothing dangerous to aviation has been found. There has also not been any incidental finding of something that is evidence of a crime being committed. However, there has been something found that further investigation might (or maybe even likely will) determine was criminal.
The question is whether such an additional investigation is constitutionally permissible. I argue it isn't because that object would not have been discovered but for the administrative search. Therefore, the investigation, whether it's performed by a TSO or LEO, is legally part of that search and such a search can't be used to look for general criminal activity. Therefore, there's no constitutional way of doing such an investigation.
I honestly don't know how to respond to this. I mean, right and wrong doesn't have anything to do with it. I am truly dumbfounded by this naive thinking.
Right or wrong has everything to do with it. Every policy needs to be vetted with the following questions, does the policy violate law, the constitution or is it just plain wrong? (some things are legal but are just plain wrong like lowing someone's pay without warning)
This is not naive thinking it is right thinking. The TSA (and all of Government) should be beyond reproach.
It is one thing to have a situation that falls into a gray area, it is quite another to write policy with the intent of creating gray areas and then taking your chances in court if and when someone challenges it.
12-hour self-paced computer course that realistically could be completed in 3 to 4 hours with a multiple choice quiz consisting of 20 or 25 questions (I forgot how many). Then came a 40-hour OJT with no defined performance standards. At the end of a 40-hour workweek, that screener was deemed "certified." Initially, the only thing preventing the screener from working alone at the x-ray machine was an administrative matter: being issued a dosimeter. Once issued, then that screener was free to work alone. The x-ray test pieces consisted of some very basic items that I've often described as the Wile E. Coyote Acme time bomb. One of them was three plastic sticks to simulate dynamite, a metallic detonator with no internal components, a 9-volt battery and an analog alarm clock with huge bells on the top. The handgun was an encapsulated revolver. If you couldn't see these things in the x-ray machine, you had to be legally blind.
This was the FAA standard, pal. Keep defending it.
Where did I defend the prior standard, Bart? I simply asked you to explain your reasoning.
No snappy response regarding TSA's lawyers? Cat got your tongue?
Programs: CO Platinum, SPG Platinum, HH Gold - whatever that's worth now :(
Posts: 12,493
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bart
Just to provide some balance: this is stupid advice.
No it's not. No laws are broken by leaving the checkpoint, nor am I under any obligation to stick around while you run and cry to the police. If someone is carrying something like cash or drugs and it gets detected, they better figure out how to get away from there quickly - and doing so does not violate any law.
If the cop catches up to them away from the checkpoint, they can refuse a search of the bag and state they changed their mind about flying (outside the sterile area), forcing the cop to get a warrant. If the cop searches the bag anyway, their lawyer has a good shot at getting the evidence thrown out in court provided the person adamantly refuses the search away from the checkpoint and adamantly states they have no intention of entering the sterile area.
__________________ Rich and 50 is the same as middle-class and 30
There was a recent article that discussed the high failure rates of screener re-certifications at 2 airports.
I guess that speaks to the TSA training standard.....
The other inconvenient truth Bart can't handle is the fact that contract screeners are more effective than his TSO brethren.
Quote:
By Thomas Frank, USA TODAY
WASHINGTON — Security screeners at two of the nation's busiest airports failed to find fake bombs hidden on undercover agents posing as passengers in more than 60% of tests last year, according to a classified report obtained by USA TODAY.
Screeners at Los Angeles International Airport missed about 75% of simulated explosives and bomb parts that Transportation Security Administration testers hid under their clothes or in carry-on bags at checkpoints, the TSA report shows.
At Chicago O'Hare International Airport, screeners missed about 60% of hidden bomb materials that were packed in everyday carry-ons — including toiletry kits, briefcases and CD players. San Francisco International Airport screeners, who work for a private company instead of the TSA, missed about 20% of the bombs, the report shows. The TSA ran about 70 tests at Los Angeles, 75 at Chicago and 145 at San Francisco.
Yes, it's an old story (2007), but I'm sure if TSA had better results to brag about, they would have.
decides to leave/exit the terminal vs attempting to enter the sterile area without being properly screened? either before or after putting their "bags on the belt" (or whatever the demarcation line is for "consenting to the search")
