Your logic is analogous to running a red light, seeing a cop, then racing home to your driveway where you can park the car, get out with keys in hand, and expect to receive only a traffic ticket.
I don't see that analogy. An administrative search is done under voluntary consent and a traffic stop is involuntary. Yes, there is the legal question of what the consequences are for a person withdrawing permission in the middle of a voluntary search, but those certainly aren't the same as evading a required stop.
Doesn't the fact that TSA brags on its web site about "finds" of illegal but non-prohibited objects serve as such "encouragement"?
That's a problem. TSA needs some good numbers to justify mission creep. They don't have those numbers so they use the 'finds' numbers instead and even those numbers aren't that impressive. Bean counters/bureaucrats, bah humbug.
TSA should stick to the primary mission of keeping WEI off of aircraft and do it well. TSA should treat the traveling public and their belongings decently.
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.
Well, that explains why I got the fist up my @$$ every time I took a BLS kit (without oxygen) as carry-on. Couldn't tell the difference between the ACME bomb timer and my BP cuff.
__________________ Department of Homeland Security sounds better in the original German: Heimatsicherheitsministerium
A memo called 'excessive' cash contraband. Why not issue a new memo deleting that line? Seems pretty simple.
The TSA Operational Directive, OD-400-54-2 May 9, 2005, is at the core of this problem.
This directive placed cash in the same category as drugs. Part of the OD will be included at this end of this.
I maintain that TSA has been given no role to play in the control or regulation of cash. There are other laws and regulations dealing with this. Also cash by itself is no threat to any aircraft. Can it be used to finance terrorist operations? Sure. While in flight? No! Being no threat to aviation removes this particular item from TSA's responsibility to detect even though TSAs Chief Operating Officer at the time, Jonathan J. Fleming thinks otherwise.
I don't know if this version of the OD is still in force since TSA must work behind a veil of secrecy so the citizens of this country cannot see the vile things they do.
Aviation security is a desirable goal but abuse of the owners of this country, trampling the Constitution and just out illegal actions does not make for good security.
Here is part of the OD:
"Francine Kerner – TSA Chief Counsel
Discovery of Contraband During the Screening Process OD-400-54-2 May 9, 2005
Expiration – Indefinite
Summary - This directive provides guidance to ensure nationwide consistency in the appropriate referral or initiation of civil enforcement actions for incidents involving discovery of contraband during TSA screening procedures.
Procedures - When TSA discovers contraband during the screening process that is not a TSA Prohibited Item, the matter should be referred to the local Law Enforcement Officers as appropriate. An Enforcement Investigative Report should not be initiated.
Examples of such contraband include:
- Illegal Drugs
- Drug Paraphernalia
- Large Amounts of Cash(10,000.00)
The OD was signed by TSAs Chief Operating Officer at the time, Jonathan J. Fleming
For the rest of the document, (contact numbers and e-mails) please use the FOIA process for OD-400-54-2
Thanks,
Bob
EoS Blog Team
December 31, 2008 12:34 PM
Last edited by Boggie Dog; Jul 4, 09 at 10:03 am.
Reason: removed a carriage return
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.
Lesson learned: Don't mess with Marine Force Recon.
__________________ Department of Homeland Security sounds better in the original German: Heimatsicherheitsministerium
Just another take on this part of an earlier post.
Probably everyone on this board has experienced a TSA screener who was an [insert dirty word here]. I doubt that the [insert dirty word here] behavior I was subjected to was a one time occurence by that screener, although there is a first time for everything. I doubt that the behavior was never observed by people with supervisory responsibility, people repeat behaviors that work for them, they tend not to incorporate new behaviors (part of what makes training difficult). I doubt that it was corrected by said supervisory each time the supe observed it, otherwise the [insert dirty word here] screener probably would have either learned the lesson or been canned. I won't suggest that the [insert dirty word here] behavior was encouraged, but it sure as heck was allowed.
I'm waiting for some smurf to snarl at a diabetic: "You don't have diabetes, you're just a fat f..k that needs to go on a diet." It likely has already happened, it just hasn't been reported.
The (real) police officer that said this to a friend in my (and about five other people's) hearing now can't even get a job as a prison guard and the department handed my friend $250K in less than two weeks to make him go away. Otherwise it would have been national news (and I pleaded with my friend to go ahead and sue anyway, just to get the story out there).
__________________ Department of Homeland Security sounds better in the original German: Heimatsicherheitsministerium
Goes a bit further than that, I'm afraid. Under the pre-TSA system, the airlines were free to add to the procedures. When TSA was formed and developed the prohibited items list, it was not unusual to find three or four different versions of the list, depending on which airline the passenger was traveling with. The airline GSC was the one who made the call, and the frustration for the screeners was to figure out who was the GSC at the checkpoint in order to determine when an item was or wasn't considered prohibited. Got to be pretty frustrating all around.
This is one of the thousand reasons I hope we never go back to private contractor screening (defined as the pre-9/11 arrangement).
After 9/11, but before TSA, flying out of Joplin, Mo was a hoot. You passed from the waiting area into a secure holding area because you walk out onto the tarmac to the aircraft. Depending on which airline you flew, the screening process was either tolerable or intolerable. Complain about the intolerable and you got the "that isn't us" message.
Yep, familiar with the local policies. Early on TSA wasn't much better in that it went from not so intrusive to all passengers get treated like prisoners - depending again on the airport.
It was only a matter of time. I hope TSA has to pay a huge judgement that bankrupts them.
You can't bankrupt the federal government. All they'll do is print more money.
More effective to make an example out of the offending TSO. Permanently crippling the family's finances, the ex-TSO watching helplessly from a prison cell while his virgin anus is peddled to the highest bidder by his cellmate is a much more effective deterrent. Bonus points if the ex-TSO is found to be HIV+ at the release physical.
If it weren't a violation of the 8th Amendment, I'd propose building a Turkish Prison specifically for government officials who break the law. Save Supermax for the violent cases.
__________________ Department of Homeland Security sounds better in the original German: Heimatsicherheitsministerium
Since you mentioned me by name, I'll respond. If you're talking about the pre-TSA contract screeners, you are absolutely wrong. I described their training program in detail because I used to hire and train them as a private contractor manager and later as a private contractor supervisor.
I wasn't talking about pre-TSA contract screeners. Only someone who isn't willing to address the facts would have thought I was. Especially since I posted a link to an article that was referring to comparisons between TSA and contract screeners in 2007.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bart
If you're talking about the current so-called private contractors, you're wrong again. They undergo the exact same training program as regular TSA officers. The only difference between the government-trained private contractors and TSA officers is that the government contractors wear a different uniform.
I'm not talking about their training, Bart. I'm talking about their performance. And as the admittedly dated article I posted demonstrates, contract screening personnel detected a far greater percentage of the test bombs, how you can deny the performance gap is simply incredible.
An honest question, Bart. If TSA merely set standards for screeners, and enforced them through a mandatory training syllabus, and had a TSA FSD at every airport to ensure standards were maintained, how would we be worse off if screeners were contract instead of tenured federal employees?
Location: Newport Beach, California, USA (Recently of San Francisco)
Programs: UA-1P,SPG-Gold,Marriott-Silver
Posts: 10,334
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bart
I guess what I failed to mention is that IF a supervisor determines that this is something suspicious, the first option is to simply ask the passenger. If the passenger refuses, then it's a simple matter of referring it to the LEO and let the LEO ask the questions.
Under no circumstances should anyone ever answer questions of either a TSO or LEO unless it is related to something innocuous like the weather. No one can be compelled to answer questions of either and one should never do so without a lawyer present -- particularly if the object in question is, "a bag of white powder."
Quote:
Once the administrative search is complete and the matter is turned over to the LEO,
Once the administrative search is over, the TSO has no jurisdiction to conduct any further search or investigation, to retain anything, or to turn anything over to a LEO.
Quote:
If the carry-on is open and the baggie is now in plain view, the police officer will handle the matter as he/she has been trained. At this point, TSA is out of the picture.
TSA is out of the picture the moment that the administrative search is complete and the TSO has determined that the passenger is not carrying guns, knives or explosives. If the search is over and bag is open, the passenger should close the bag and walk away. If the passenger has been cleared for the sterile area, go there, if not, exit the the checkpoint back to the non-sterile area.
Quote:
If a TSO conducts a search specifically looking for drugs, the search is completely illegal and unconstitutional. If an LEO were to prompt, encourage, hint or otherwise have a TSO initiate a search for the specific purpose of looking for drugs, then it would still be an illegal search and both would face disciplinary action.
That is correct, with one addendum. If the TSO has determined that the passenger is not carrying guns, knives or explosives ANY further search is illegal.
Quote:
While I suppose a TSO could always claim he or she was looking for a tube of toothpaste, it comes down to court testimony, and a TSO would be absolutely foolish to risk perjuring himself or herself on the witness stand.
Sure, TSOs never lie. Come on, Bart, you know better. There are good TSOs, and there are TSOs that lie, bully and steal.
Quote:
For example, a lawyer asks, "Isn't it true that burning marijuana can also smell like burning rope?"
The question is objectionable on its face, as no TSO would ever qualify as an expert with respect to detecting drugs.
Quote:
A truthful person might have difficulty answering because that person understands that there are always possibilities and other perceptions. The question is designed to introduce doubt. This doesn't make the witness a liar about whether or not he smelled burning marijuana. But the witness will probably squirm, hesitate answering while looking for the right words and otherwise present a perception of being uncomfortable with the question.
Please, please, please don't provide opinions about what happens in court. You are not qualified to do so. As I recall, before you were a TSO you were a LEO. Feel free to explain what happens at checkpoints, or how a LEO conducts an arrest and detention. You are not, in any way, qualified to explain how court room testimony works, even if you have been a witness a number of times. Leave that to the lawyers, rather than giving inaccurate and misleading information.
Quote:
A liar simply wouldn't stand a chance on the witness stand.
Sure, witnesses never lie, do they? A liar doesn't stand much of a chance with a good lawyer doing the examination. However, witnesses lie on the stand every day and get away with it.
Programs: CO Platinum, SPG Platinum, HH Gold - whatever that's worth now :(
Posts: 12,493
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bart
You know, while we're in here bantering back and forth, if someone were foolish enough to follow your advice, they would end up in a world of hurt. I know you don't see it that way, but it's the plain truth. Your logic is analogous to running a red light, seeing a cop, then racing home to your driveway where you can park the car, get out with keys in hand, and expect to receive only a traffic ticket.
Very dumb advice, my friend.
Your analogy is incorrect. No law requires me to complete the screening process, only a TSA rule. I can be given a civil fine, but not arrested. You're obviously picturing my scenario as grabbing a bag and running. You should re-read it.
My scenario involves announcing that you're not flying and will be leaving the airport, and taking the bag and walking away. If the cop catches up with the person, they can repeat the same thing. Once away from the checkpoint, they can refuse a search and force the cop to get a warrant. If asked, a person can just say they changed their mind and don't feel like flying.
Sure they can be detained - but must be arrested or let go. If arrested and the bag is searched anyway, their lawyer has a defense in court that they repeatedly stated they are not flying, and wish to leave the airport. It would make it much harder to get a conviction that way, than if they just stood there at the checkpoint and either willingly opened their bag or continued to protest at the checkpoint where their intent to fly was still apparent.
The difference was clearly pointed out by RichardKenner - your search is 100% voluntary, while a traffic stop is not. A TSA interaction is not a law enforcement situation. I have the right to end an Administrative search even if it violates your SOP - until an actual law goes on the books that requires I comply with and complete any searches as a condition of entering airport property. Your SOP is not a set of laws, so please don't think it is.
__________________ Rich and 50 is the same as middle-class and 30
