I'd venture a quick guess that it became a pi$$ing contest. It just escalated due to attitude, on both sides. I could be mistaken, as well. It is a case that IMHO deserves to be argued in court.
What I find funny about TSA's insistence these days that they have to look for non-aviation safety related suspicious behavior and conduct, is that they originally were reluctant to seize obvious contraband, such as bags of marijuana.
What I find funny about TSA's insistence these days that they have to look for non-aviation safety related suspicious behavior and conduct, is that they originally were reluctant to seize obvious contraband, such as bags of marijuana.
What I find funny about TSA's insistence these days that they have to look for non-aviation safety related suspicious behavior and conduct, is that they originally were reluctant to seize obvious contraband, such as bags of marijuana.
I wonder what has prompted the change of heart?
A reckless desire to be recognized and lauded? It does seem to be a rather thankless occupation.
__________________
"Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness." Mark Twain
I don't want to put words in Bart's mouth, but I think what he was getting at is that large amounts of cash trigger the TSA search/seizure-- but that in order to figure out that $4,700 is not $14,700 the TSA has to count it. A large stack of bills could have lots of $10 or $20 notes, or it could have $50 and $100 notes. Have to count it to know if it is more than $10,000. That's all I can think of. Such a case just points out how stupid this is. The question you seem to pose is, why, after it was discovered that it was less than $10,000.01 (as in this case) the TSA, with the help of the police, continued the search/seizure. I have no answer for that.
The above is just my take on the exchange. Feel free to correct me if I am wrong.
--Ari
You may have it right, I'm just not certain.
Here is the post I was responding to:
"Quote:
Originally Posted by Trollkiller
The TSA SOP and the LEO SOP will show that they were not following orders. Once that is established the individuals can be sued for infringing on the man's rights.
Remember the case of the guy and the t-shirt?
Wrongamundo, big time. It is an established procedure. The question is whether or not there is a valid nexus between this procedure and airport screening. I would not mind it if this procedure were removed from the books.
But make no mistake, this isn't the Earth-shattering court case that some are making it out to be. It will result in a minor adjustment to current screening procedures. That's it. "
TK suggested that the TSO did not follow procedures. Bart is saying they did and as we all know the traveler had much less than $10,000 since this has made the rounds here and elsewhere. So Bart's response is taking that information into account.
So the implication is that something less than $10,000 will trigger this kind of procedure. The evidence supports that something less than $10,000 will trigger this type of behavior on part of the TSA.
Bart is free to come back and clarify what he said or to answer my question; is there a procedure that calls for increased scrutiny if a person has less than $10,000.
I would be happy if he came back and said I misunderstood his post, but as you notice he did not refute my follow up question.
I'd have to check my files, but IIRC, it was about a year after TSA was created and took over airport screening duties. DEA was complaining loudly about TSA's refusal to hold seized contraband until it could be turned over to DEA or another LEO. Seems that certain TSA locations were simply giving the marijuana back to the traveler when DEA didn't show up fast enough to suit TSA.
Here is my prediction, the TSA will argue that the SOP does NOT allow for the behavior shown in this incident and the TSO acted beyond the scope of his training and accepted practice.
I'll bet that's what Steve is hoping for. The instant DHS files a response that states the TSOs and airport "police" were acting beyond training and policy, there will be a separate lawsuit against them in pro per. They're not federal law enforcement, they can be held personally liable, with means personal assets can be claimed.
Spouses turning tricks, children living in a cardboard box, that sort of thing.
__________________ Department of Homeland Security sounds better in the original German: Heimatsicherheitsministerium
I'll bet that's what Steve is hoping for. The instant DHS files a response that states the TSOs and airport "police" were acting beyond training and policy, there will be a separate lawsuit against them in pro per. They're not federal law enforcement, they can be held personally liable, with means personal assets can be claimed.
Spouses turning tricks, children living in a cardboard box, that sort of thing.
The complaint states that:
Quote:
14. TSA possesses authority under federal law to deputize local law enforcement officers to implement the passenger screening process.
15. Officers deputized by TSA are treated as federal law enforcement officers for purposes of meeting the requirements of TSA’s statutory duties. They are also treated as federal officers for purposes of assessing liability for actions undertaken pursuant to any deputation agreement with TSA.
. . .
24. On information and belief, both of these police officers were acting pursuant to deputation agreements with the TSA.
So, the ACLU seems to be treating the police as an "arm" of DHS in this case. I don't claim to understand the exact logic (legal or otherwise), but the complaint seems to speak for itself on this topic.
Since the main goal of this lawsuit is to "permanently enjoin Defendant, her officers, agents, servants, employees, and all persons in active concert or participation with her who receive actual notice of the injunction, from authorizing or conducting suspicionless pre-flight searches of passengers or their belongings for items other than weapons and explosives," suing individuals wouldn't seem necessary. I think the smart lawyers working for and with the ACLU took the correct approach-- if you want to change policy, focus on that. If you want petty retribution, then sue everyone. I trust that they did the research and reached a good conclusion.
So, the ACLU seems to be treating the police as an "arm" of DHS in this case. I don't claim to understand the exact logic (legal or otherwise), but the complaint seems to speak for itself on this topic.
Since the main goal of this lawsuit is to "permanently enjoin Defendant, her officers, agents, servants, employees, and all persons in active concert or participation with her who receive actual notice of the injunction, from authorizing or conducting suspicionless pre-flight searches of passengers or their belongings for items other than weapons and explosives," suing individuals wouldn't seem necessary. I think the smart lawyers working for and with the ACLU took the correct approach-- if you want to change policy, focus on that. If you want petty retribution, then sue everyone. I trust that they did the research and reached a good conclusion.
I could not agree more. Suit for money could easily be settled with no admission of wrondoing.
This action has a real chance to bring about some real changes.
__________________
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it".
This action has a real chance to bring about some real changes.
That depends on what your definition of 'real changes' would be.
It might change what would cause a TSAer to be suspicious when a screener sees a wad of money and possibly a change in the SOP.
It might also create a wad of money (albeit not huge) for the person who was detained as well.
But to bring the agency down as a whole? This lawsuit ain't going to do that.
This is not a slam-dunk, but apparently, there are some smart people on this case. To me, first they're going to have to demonstrate who was who in the audio recording. Who was TSA, who was police. That could be difficult, but that might only be something that needs to be determined if monetary damages are awarded.
As much as I would like to see the TSA go down on this, the only way that would happen is if a Congresscritter took exception and decided to do something about it.
__________________
Excuse me stewardess, I speak jive.
That depends on what your definition of 'real changes' would be.
It might change what would cause a TSAer to be suspicious when a screener sees a wad of money and possibly a change in the SOP.
Isn't that a real change?
Quote:
It might also create a wad of money (albeit not huge) for the person who was detained as well.
Since the lawsuit doesn't seek damages (only legal fees), I'm not sure how that would happen.
Quote:
But to bring the agency down as a whole? This lawsuit ain't going to do that.
Not sure anyone is claiming that . . .
Quote:
This is not a slam-dunk, but apparently, there are some smart people on this case. To me, first they're going to have to demonstrate who was who in the audio recording. Who was TSA, who was police. That could be difficult, but that might only be something that needs to be determined if monetary damages are awarded.
1) Why would that be difficult? The plaintiff was there and can testify as to who said what.
2) No one is asking for damages.
Quote:
As much as I would like to see the TSA go down on this, the only way that would happen is if a Congresscritter took exception and decided to do something about it.
Ummmm . . . the lawsuit speaks for itself. It wants the TSA to cease "conducting suspicionless pre-flight searches of passengers or their belongings for items other than weapons and explosives."
Not sure why congress would need to be involved to make such a change.
Location: DFW; 2-time FT Fantasy Football Champ, now in recovery.
Programs: AA GLD 1.1MM, Marriott Gld; OMNIPat
Posts: 6,204
Quote:
Originally Posted by n4zhg
I'll bet that's what Steve is hoping for. The instant DHS files a response that states the TSOs and airport "police" were acting beyond training and policy, there will be a separate lawsuit against them in pro per. They're not federal law enforcement, they can be held personally liable, with means personal assets can be claimed.
Spouses turning tricks, children living in a cardboard box, that sort of thing.
Wait a sec. Did you just post a thumbs-up on the prospect of children being forced to live in a cardboard box?
I've got no love for TSA or for over-aggressive screeners, but that seems a bit much.
__________________
This space intentionally left blank.
Not sure why congress would need to be involved to make such a change.
What I consider to be a victory is that the TSA would stop looking for non-threats to aviation security.
My gut feeling is that the end result will be the legal fees being paid by The G and a memo being issued to TSAers saying to be sure there's a substantial amount of money in there, not just $4,700.
I misread the part about monetary damages, I stand corrected.
But my feeling still stands that this will not mean very big changes. I hope I'm wrong.
__________________
Excuse me stewardess, I speak jive.
My gut feeling is that the end result will be the legal fees being paid by The G and a memo being issued to TSAers saying to be sure there's a substantial amount of money in there, not just $4,700.
I don't see how that plan won't work, because there is no limit on the amount of money you can legally carry. So how could one determine a threshold amount above which it would be reasonable to be suspicious?
CNN just picked it up
