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.
Assuming you can leave the checkpoint without interfering with screening, you are under no obligation to stop and wait for a cop. Once the cop catches up to you and says halt, then it becomes a different story.
OK. Fair enough. You and I have a different perspective on what's legal and illegal. I don't see it as right and wrong; I see it as legal and illegal. I've done lots of things in my previous career that were legal but could be strongly argued as morally wrong. I don't lose sleep over it, but I certainly don't talk about it (people would never look at me the same way ever again).
I don't think the excessive cash provision in the SOP was deliberately written as a gray area. I do agree that it is poorly written. There are a ton of mundane explanations ranging from no one thinking it would pose such a problem with interpretation to simply overlooking it because there was a publication deadline to meet and as long as it passed spellcheck, it was good to go. Who knows.
As I've said all along, I hope this court case clarifies the provision. I'd like to see it taken out completely!
Anything in the SOP that describes what is "suspicious" outside of WEI needs to be removed.
Looking at the totality of what the TSA produces I have to conclude that the SOP is written with intentional gray areas. Here is how I know it is intentional, it does not change when brought to the policy writer's attention.
Has the $10k rule changed or been clarified in the SOP?
Location: Newport Beach, California, USA (Recently of San Francisco)
Programs: UA-1P,SPG-Gold,Marriott-Silver
Posts: 10,334
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bart
Here's where your advice is stupid, honey:
IF a TSO attempts to physically detain you, the smartest thing for you to do is to simply request to speak to either a TSA supervisor or the airport LEO.
If a TSO physically detains yell for the police at the top of your lungs. Do not ask to speak to a TSA supervisor. A crime has been committed. Tell the LEO what happened, demand that the checkpoint tapes be obtained and indicate that you wish to press charges. No TSO has the right to touch you in any fashion EXCEPT as part of the administrative search and in compliance with TSA SOP.
TSOs are not allowed to break the law and, when they do, they should be treated like any other criminal.
Bart, why in the world would you encourage hiding criminal behavior on the part of TSOs? If a TSO stole your Rolex would you ask for a supervisor? How about if one raped your wife? TSOs have no right to touch anyone, except as indicated above, and attempting to physically detain someone is a battery.
To determine the reasonableness of an administrative airport search, the Court must balance an individual's right to be free of intrusion with "society's interest in safe air travel. United States v. Marquez, 410 F.3d 612, 616 (9th Cir.2005) (quoting United States v. Pulido-Baquerizo, 800 F.2d 899, 901 (9th Cir.1986)).
Therefore, an airport security search is reasonable if:
(1) the search is no more extensive or intensive than
necessary, in light of current technology, to detect the
presence of weapons or explosives;
(2) the search is confined in good faith to that purpose; and
(3) a potential passenger may avoid the search by choosing
not to fly. Aukai, 497 F.3d at 962. The mere fact that
contraband other than weapons or explosives is found
during an airport screening search, however, does not
itself render the search unconstitutional. Marquez,
410 F.3d at 616.
(page 5 right hand column)
Quote:
THE COURT: Did you think that the envelope contained
a weapon?
THE WITNESS: No. It is very unlikely that it would
have contained a weapon because it already went
through the x-ray machine and that's what they
were checking for in the x-ray machine.
Apparently in the Fofana case the technology was sufficient to determine if there was a threat in the bag without opening the bag.
In the Ron Paul dude's case the technology was not sufficient so opening the box was not problematic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RichardKenner
Which is why I used that as an example.
The other issue is nude-but-not-pornographics photos of children, for example, a naked 3-year old running through a sprinkler.
Did you really mean that the way you said it? If so, you've created not only a 4th Amendment issue but a 5th as well. You can't use refusal to answer such a question as establishing any level of suspicion: if you have a procedure which distinguishes between the case where a passenger answers or refuses to answer, that procedure seems prima facia unconstitutional.
As has been said before, it is precisely this being a requirement in some cases that produces the constitutional problem.
No, because baggie would not have been in plain view but for the administrative search! I think we all agree that if the TSO had presented the bag to the LEO in the same state as they got it (i.e., closed), the LEO would need a warrant to open the bag. What's happening here is that the administrative search is being used to circumvent the need for that warrant, and that's not permissible.
Doesn't the fact that TSA brags on its web site about "finds" of illegal but non-prohibited objects serve as such "encouragement"?
Quote:
Originally Posted by PTravel
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.
Location: Newport Beach, California, USA (Recently of San Francisco)
Programs: UA-1P,SPG-Gold,Marriott-Silver
Posts: 10,334
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bart
If you follow the posts, the person I was responding to said he would physically attack the TSO.
I have been following the posts. The person to whom you responded indicated that he would defend himself. Every jurisdiction allows the use of proportional force in self-defense.
Quote:
I think you would agree that such an act would only make matters worse.
It depends. As I said, the use of force must be proportional. If a TSO grabbed my arm, I would pull away. If he tackled my wife, I would beat him to a pulp, at least until I was sure that he no longer posed a threat to her.
Quote:
The smart thing to do is to notify either the supervisor
No, the stupid thing to do is to notify the supervisor. A crime has been committed. LEOs address crime, not supervisors. There is absolutely no reason to involve a supervisor. I'll ask you again: if a TSO stole your Rolex, would you call a supervisor? If a TSO raped your wife, would you call a supervisor? Why do you think it's any different if a TSO assaults you?
Quote:
or LEO rather than to resort to violence.
Violence in self-defense is privileged, provided it is proportional. I'm not aware of any jurisdictions that still require a victim to attempt to retreat. If a LEO commits an act of violence against me, i.e. a battery, I will defend myself.
Quote:
Obviously, you don't have faith that a supervisor would do anything;
Wrong. This has nothing to do with what a supervisor would or would not do. People who are the victims of crimes should seek assistance from a LEO, i.e. a Law Enforcement Officer, and not a non-LEO. If you are ill, go to a doctor. If your house is on fire, call the fire department. If you are the victim of a battery, call the police -- do not call the assailant's supervisor.
Quote:
however, I think you agree with the general advice of notifying an appropriate authority rather than taking the law into your own hands.
Self-defense is not taking the law into your own hands. It is absolutely privileged under law. Revenge is taking the law in your own hands, and that's something that should be done in the context of a criminal or civil suit. Protecting yourself from a battery is neither illegal nor unwise.
Quote:
The only other point is that I'm not the one who said that TSOs have the authority to physically restrain anyone.
Well, I would hope not. A TSO who attempts to physically detain someone has no legal authority to do so. His only legal justification is citizen's arrest which carries no privilege whatsoever, nor is there a good-faith exception. If he is wrong, i.e. no grounds for arrest or detention existed, he will be arrested and is liable in a civil action.
Quote:
In fact, I've said the opposite: TSOs cannot physically restrain anyone.
TSOs can't do a lot of things that they do nonetheless. When I have time I'll write about my run-in with two non-SOP-following TSOs on Thursday at SNA. The point isn't whether TSOs are permitted to physically restrain anyone -- obviously, they are not. The question is, what to do if one does. The answer remains the same: defend yourself if necessary and immediately call for a LEO.
Quote:
The only physical contact permitted is that which occurs conducive to airport security searches.
That's the procedure. Many TSOs do not follow procedure, as we all know well. Moreover, your advice, which was wrong, was given in the context of what to do if a TSO does attempt to physically detain a passenger. My response was to your advice.
The blog is already a laughingstock. Perhaps the TSA thinks that having this bimbo answer questions will keep the passengers laughing?
The same could be said of this forum based upon your point of view.
I think the blog does a fair job of presenting information, it is one of the only Gov blogs that allow a majority of dissenting views to be published unaltered as they come in. It has a fairly clear posting policy and they generate a ton fo traffic. Just because a lot of the subject matter is not what you want, and the blog team is not allowed to answer some of the questions (admittedly good sometimes), does not mean it is a laughing stock, it means that the blog teams goals are different than yours.
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.
I personally offer if there is no other indication of other wrongdoing. It is not a requirement unless there is something hinky going on (like illegal substances or something that is a threat), and if there is something hinky, it is a STSO then LEO referral, not at my command. The language and some of the actions of the TSO were outright wrong. I don't know the whole situation behind the situation, so I can't comment on whether the passenger was pulled for a valid reason or not. Remember that the recording is only of what happened in the private screening area, not what lead up to the recording. I am inclined to be pretty pissy with the TSO for his demeanor and language to the nth degree and think he should be punished accordingly - I will not make excuses for that type of behavior. If I had someone that spoke to a passenger like that in front of me it would be paperwork and manager time at the very least.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boggie Dog
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.
There's a word for people like that!
I have slowed down a bit of late because of events in my personal life, but I haven't shied out of anything. I even answered Phils pointed questions in the shoes on the belt blog.
Quote:
Originally Posted by doober
What if the pax involved does not want to go to a private area? Would you take their property and disappear with it?
Never. I would explain the reasoning behind it and if the passenger didn't want to go (BTW there would be another TSO with us to make certain nothing else happened - it is protection for both the passenger and myself), we would do the bag check right there to clear the possible threat.
Last edited by scoow; Jul 4, 09 at 9:34 pm.
Reason: merge multiple consecutive posts
Well, if the STSO is attempting to resolve a security-related matter, and the passenger refuses to cooperate, then the STSO cannot clear the individual beyond the checkpoint.
We were talking about the STSO asking a passenger about what was in a "baggie of white powder".
(1) How is that a "security-related matter"?
(2) In general, how can anything that a passenger says be used to clear an item? It would certainly seem to me that it would be a serious violation of security to rely on what a passenger said as being truthful. About all a passenger could do would be to help the STSO in identifying or opening the object ("the top comes off when you turn it clockwise").
Because of this, "cooperating" cannot be deemed to include answering questions.
Last edited by RichardKenner; Jul 4, 09 at 2:16 pm.
Reason: typos
I think the facts in that case were such that they justified opening the suitcase but not the bag.
I think the Fofana lawyers did not want to pollute the strong issue with the weaker issue.
Note: I am taking a liberal read of "in light of current technology" so it means "in light of current technology available to the screener", as I am sure there is "current technology" not available to the screener.
This statement "the search is no more extensive or intensive than
necessary, in light of current technology, to detect the
presence of weapons or explosives; tells me that the search would not be reasonable if x-ray and explosives detection swabs are available. In the Fofana case they were available and they were used. And by the screener's admission those are effective in finding weapons and explosives.
As technology advances the extensiveness and intensiveness of the searches should decrease.
The only out I can see for the opening of the bag is if the TSA claims that the x-ray image showed possible explosives that needed to be swabbed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gsoltso
I have slowed down a bit of late because of events in my personal life, but I haven't shied out of anything. I even answered Phils pointed questions in the shoes on the belt blog.
I hope the events are good ones.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RichardKenner
We were talking about the STSO asking a passenger about what was in a "baggie of white powder".
(1) How is that a "security-related matter"?
(2) In general, how can anything that a passenger says be used to clear an item? It would certainly seem to me that it would be a serious violation of security to rely on what a passenger said as being truthful. About all a passenger could do would be to help the STSO in identifying or opening the object ("the top comes off when you turn it clockwise").
Because of this, "cooperating" cannot be deemed to include answering questions.
1) A bag of white powder is a security issue due to the fact it could be an incendiary or explosive material.
They have been positive events, the daughter graduated high school, I got a el cheapo riding mower for my mother in laws beach place and fixed it up for much less than I thought I would, I have rfinished a ton of silver restoration in the last month and oh yeah, I have been selected for BDO and leave for that school Tuesday! Busy busy busy, never stop.... My life was never this fast when I was getting shot at in the Army, explain that too me?
