This is my personal frustration. As I've noted before, I've made about six trips by air to the USA since the TSA was implemented, and have managed to jangle their chain to the point where they brought in LEOs and threatened me with arrest every single time (although, not every single flight, some of these U.S. visits were to 5, 6 or more cities). They can do nothing about it, even though they continuously threaten to. I follow up with formal complaints, and then when they try to ignore the formal complaints I get my congressperson's office involved. Some day, one of them will cross a line, and then I will sue.
If just 10% of the travelling public would do the same thing, the whole system would grind to a screeching halt, and they would be forced to change. But although many people gripe and complain about the TSA, when they get to the airport they invariably decide to bear their anger and frustration in silence, and as a result, the system continues to creak along, and the TSA is able to maintain the pretence that its policies are legitimate.
Your observation about "...the whole system would grind to a screeching halt..." reminds me of situations I have found myself in while transacting business with an airline, hotel, car rental etc. While I pride myself on knowing the pertinent details of what I have purchased I am often surprised to learn of a clause in the agreement (you know the small print in half tone color on the back) which which deals with a special circumstance I had not thought of.
Now to the point, if everyone actually completely read the agreement that is signed during the hotel check in hotel, car rental, or air line ticketing process, and not permit the next person to be served until one's review of the document has been completed and the agent for the company has clearly answered all questions, it would break the back of the US economy. In fact quite often I find the agent is not familair with the details of the contract either.
"Just initial the X's and sign at the bottom", might be expeditious but it does nothing to protect the signer.
If similar rulings are made in different Districts, does that make it more compelling or it really doesn't matter ?
You asked about District court, but the answer you got was about Circuits. I'm not an attorney, but I believe that the best answer to your question is "it can be". In other words, when an attorney submits a brief, it's more persuasive to be able to say "these six judges ruled the way I'm asking you to rule" than to say "that judge ruled the way I'm asking you to rule". But it's a relatively minor advantage because most briefs cite appellate decisions (Circuits or the Supreme Court), not the lower courts.
1. I never said that a TSO can search for anything beyond what is in the prohibited items list. In fact, I said that a TSO can only initiate a search looking for an item that appears to be a prohibited item. The only variation to that is when a bag is so cluttered on the x-ray screen that a physical search is necessary. Both amount to the same thing. You have deliberately distorted what I've said.
2. I never said that a TSO may physically detain anyone. You claim that I have, and that's a bald-faced lie.
3. I never said a TSO is above the law. Yet here you are claiming that I have.
Your excerpts from court decisions are the very points I made. You haven't contradicted me; you've validated me.
I hope you do a much better job reviewing court briefs than you do internet posts.
How can you expect me to continue with someone who refuses to stick to the basic discussion?
But your own TSA has said so. TSA supervisor in Dallas actually grabbed a subordinate by the arm to tell her to clear a passenger. US Department of Justice wanted the State of Texas charge dismissed.
TSA aviation security inspector damaged (and grounded for several days due to loss of outside temperature probe on the hull) several American Eagle SAAB 340 aircraft at Chicago ORD. No charges were filed but the TSA did want to fine American Eagle $250k for the audacity of telling the media about it.
You made a choice a long time ago about the organization you want to continue to work for. Unfortunately that very organization is not helping your arguments (nor sentiments).
When I see the TSA screeners (and of course the TSA itself) behaving in a responsible manner (and being accountable for its errors) that is when it will start to succeed in what it has been commissioned with by Congress.
Until then TSA screeners deserve no more trust (nor respect) than how they treat the very traveling public they are supposed to serve.
__________________
paul k. sanchez
boca raton, florida 33428
But your own TSA has said so. TSA supervisor in Dallas actually grabbed a subordinate by the arm to tell her to clear a passenger. US Department of Justice wanted the State of Texas charge dismissed.
TSA aviation security inspector damaged (and grounded for several days due to loss of outside temperature probe on the hull) several American Eagle SAAB 340 aircraft at Chicago ORD. No charges were filed but the TSA did want to fine American Eagle $250k for the audacity of telling the media about it.
You made a choice a long time ago about the organization you want to continue to work for. Unfortunately that very organization is not helping your arguments (nor sentiments).
When I see the TSA screeners (and of course the TSA itself) behaving in a responsible manner (and being accountable for its errors) that is when it will start to succeed in what it has been commissioned with by Congress.
Until then TSA screeners deserve no more trust (nor respect) than how they treat the very traveling public they are supposed to serve.
Bart and the others that have made the choice to work for a rouge agency should not be given any slack, however we have no idea what Bart, Dean, Ron or any of the others are doing on the inside to correct the agency.
I ask that we do not personally attack a poster for what the agency does.
You asked about District court, but the answer you got was about Circuits. I'm not an attorney, but I believe that the best answer to your question is "it can be". In other words, when an attorney submits a brief, it's more persuasive to be able to say "these six judges ruled the way I'm asking you to rule" than to say "that judge ruled the way I'm asking you to rule". But it's a relatively minor advantage because most briefs cite appellate decisions (Circuits or the Supreme Court), not the lower courts.
A ruling by a single judge in a District Court is of little value, precedent-wise. Unless every judge in a given District adopts a given ruling, the collective stance of a majority of judges on a given issue means nothing if you've drawn the one judge who doesn't agree with the majority of his colleagues.
Come visit the District Court for the District of Columbia, and I'll show you what I mean.
Location: Newport Beach, California, USA (Recently of San Francisco)
Programs: UA-1P,SPG-Gold,Marriott-Silver
Posts: 10,288
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bart
What you've done is distort what I've posted.
1. I never said that a TSO can search for anything beyond what is in the prohibited items list. In fact, I said that a TSO can only initiate a search looking for an item that appears to be a prohibited item. The only variation to that is when a bag is so cluttered on the x-ray screen that a physical search is necessary. Both amount to the same thing. You have deliberately distorted what I've said.
I didn't say you did. This is what started this part of the discussion. You had said:
"Once the administrative search is complete and the matter is turned over to the LEO,"
And I responded, "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."
This is a critical distinction. If a TSO finds something DURING the administrative search, he can call over a LEO. Once the administrative search is complete and the passenger has been determined not to have weapons or explosives, a referral to a LEO violates Fofana.
Quote:
2. I never said that a TSO may physically detain anyone. You claim that I have, and that's a bald-faced lie.
I never said you did. I said that, IF a TSO attempts to physically detain someone it constitutes a battery and should be responded to as such. You said a supervisor should be called and I said absolutely not -- call a LEO.
Quote:
3. I never said a TSO is above the law. Yet here you are claiming that I have.
I never said anything of the sort. You stated that you trained your TSOs defend themselves. That's fine. And has nothing to do with the scenario that I was describing, i.e. a TSO who, in violation of the SOP, put his hands on a passenger outside the context of the administrative search, which is what had started this particular tangent.
Quote:
Your excerpts from court decisions are the very points I made. You haven't contradicted me; you've validated me.
Not in the above context.
Quote:
I hope you do a much better job reviewing court briefs than you do internet posts.
I'd suggest you go back and re-read the thread.
Quote:
How can you expect me to continue with someone who refuses to stick to the basic discussion?
In every case, I merely responded to what you had written. If you review the thread you will see that is so.
