I'd like to hear you and Bart (and Borax, if he, too, is a TSO; I don't remember) discuss your differing opinions on whether or not questioning someone about his belongings is useful in "clearing" one of those belongings when it is a bag of white powder.
One of the problems is that upon finding the bag of white powder, TSO's will stop thinking about trying to determine if it is a weapon, explosive or incendiary and only focus on if it might be drugs.
My guess is in the vast majority of cases the powder is never tested for explosives, regardless of the passengers responses or behavior
I will tell you the truth, I have never seen that happen, but the primary focus should always be mitigate the threat/possible threat, then follow through with any contraband issues. Another point that seems to be lost on some of the TSOs posting is that contraband is not what you are to look for (unless it is a situation where the contraband can look like something else or be too dense to clear properly on the xray), the threat/possible threat is what you are to focus on. If some suspected contraband happens to be discovered while trying to clear the threat/possible threat, then we are required to notify the STSO and they will follow it up from there. I once had a bag o white powder and the first thing I did was test it for explosives and then notified the STSO (as it happened, it was some baby powder that had gotten wet and clumped upwith some other crap mixed in to make it almost yellowish tinged).
Another point that seems to be lost on some of the TSOs posting is that contraband is not what you are to look for
Quote:
Originally Posted by gsoltso
I once had a bag o white powder and the first thing I did was test it for explosives and then notified the STSO (as it happened, it was some baby powder that had gotten wet and clumped upwith some other crap mixed in to make it almost yellowish tinged).
Do you mind telling us if a LEO was called in this situation, and if so, what happened?
If some suspected contraband happens to be discovered while trying to clear the threat/possible threat, then we are required to notify the STSO and they will follow it up from there. I once had a bag o white powder and the first thing I did was test it for explosives and then notified the STSO (as it happened, it was some baby powder that had gotten wet and clumped upwith some other crap mixed in to make it almost yellowish tinged).
Did you ever personally suspect the powder to be contraband?
IME the government rarely settles particularly in this instance where its rulemaking authority or "security" matters are at issue. Nor does it admit a legal violation or pay legal fees. So I think this one will be litigated all the way through the court of appeal.
Yup-- that was my point. The DHS isn't going to do (a), (b) and (c).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boraxo
Although I am glad to see the suit was filed and support the plaintiff, one should not underestimate the numerous defenses available to the government. And many federal judges are quite deferential to government agencies, particularly when "security" or safety is purportedly at issue. Unfortunately not a slam dunk here, much as we would like.
It isn't really going to matter too much which judge catches the case-- it will end up in the Court of Appeals for the District of Colombia Circuit . While they can be quite deferential to the government, they tend to be very serious about the 4th amendment. For fun, look up the case of USA v. Paul Askew in which an en banc court tossed out a search that most courts would allow. They weren't having any of the "officer safety" excuses-- they saw it for what it was: a search for evidence. I'd hope they do the same with Bierfeldt and find that fishing expeditions are not acceptable at airport checkpoints.
(In an answer to whether a bag of green leafy substances would be treated the same as a bag of white powder.) You also said there are ways of determining whether a substance is an explosive.
So then why do you make the claim that requiring an answer from a passenger about contents of said bag is a "security matter"? How is it constitutional to base whether or not to refer the matter further on whether a passenger chooses to answer a question that he has an absolute 5th Amendment right not to answer?
For fun, look up the case of USA v. Paul Askew in which an en banc court tossed out a search that most courts would allow.
It's hard to find that opinion with Google (which comes up with just the panel opinion). I had to go to PACER to find it, but since it's an opinion, it's free to view. It's here.
It's hard to find that opinion with Google (which comes up with just the panel opinion). I had to go to PACER to find it, but since it's an opinion, it's free to view. It's here.
I disagree that there's anything conclusive about who is more effective. I will agree that it would probably be more cost efficient to contract screeners at LTSO and below, maintain a federalized cadre of STSOs and above across the board.
Why isn't it so? Because the airports don't want to. That's the simple truth. They had the option several years ago and opted to stick with a federalized force.
So the 60% miss rate by federal TSO's compared to the 20% miss rate for the contract screeners isn't at least an indicator of effectiveness?
As far as what airports supposedly wanted, since when should they get a choice? If the federal government determines that our tax dollars could be more effectively spent by using contract screeners, that's what we should employ.
Besides, I'd like to see the evidence of this so-called "choice." Knowing how the federal government works, I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if they weren't strong-armed into this decision. After all, Kip Hawley rejected the conclusion of real security experts regarding the real threat to aviation because it would have undermined the whole Kabuki theatre we are maintaining at great cost to the taxpayers.
OTOH, we have 50,000 additional tenured federal employees on the payroll. Isn't that just wonderful.
FYI, you don't have to register with PACER to read opinions, just to find them.
I hit the link you provided and received this plus a log on box.
Quote:
Not Logged In To PACER
Instructions
Please enter your PACER login and password. If you do not have a PACER login, you may register online at http://pacer.psc.uscourts.gov.
Client Code is optional. For information, click here.
