Interrogation or questioning is interviewing as commonly employed by officers of the police and military.
The interviewee is also referred to as a "source". It is used for getting information from a suspect, witness or victim after a crime has been committed.
Interviewing is not necessarily to force a confession, but rather to develop sufficient rapport as to prompt the source to disclose valuable information.
Interrogation is accusatory in nature, and the suspect is told that they committed the offense, and presented with facts to obtain a confession.
Right to remain silent, also from Wiki:
Quote:
The right to remain silent is a legal protection given to people undergoing police interrogation or trial. The law is recognized, explicitly or by convention, in many of the world's legal systems.
The right covers a number of issues centered around the right to refuse to answer questions. This can be the right to avoid self-incrimination or the right to not answer any questions. The right usually includes the provision that adverse comment or inferences cannot be made by the judge or jury about the refusal to answer questions before or during a trial or hearing.
The above pertain to law enforcement and our legal system. The TSA is NOT law enforcement, Ronnie, no matter how much you wish it were so. No one has to answer any of your questions.
Being that I was a helicopter guy, your explanation seems to clear the air Believe me though, the idiot who climbed up the aircraft using the pitot probe should be FIRED.
Unfortunately tsadude1 your brethren in Chicago ORD disagree with you. The aviation security inspector was not fired, did not have to pay for the damage/inspection of the temperature probes (I'd estimate about 3 labors hours/probe to remove/inspect/replace or repair per aircraft x 9 aircraft), and the TSA decided that the best course of action after the media got a hold of it, was to threaten American Eagle with a $175k fine.
Irresponsible behavior is the aviation security inspector deliberately damaging the temperature probes in spite of the "NO STEP" stenciled right next to each one of them. Unaccountability is the TSA deciding to fine American Eagle $175k for the audacity of telling the press about it.
Actually a very good example of how TSA treats the private property of others.
__________________
paul k. sanchez
boca raton, florida 33428
Programs: CO Gold, BD Gold, hotwire elite, SPG dirt, PWP General Secretary
Posts: 14,119
Quote:
Originally Posted by TSORon
ROTFL, I’d like to see someone make a case of that in court.
Where, and please be specific, very specific, in the constitution is asking a question considered interrogation? Please post the link to the relevant code/statute/ruling/amendment/whatever, so that we can all read it. Get on Westlaw and make it happen PT, we can wait.
I am going to ask the question that everyone else has be itching to ask. Are you for real?
The CFR on the TSA website says you get to search my stuff for dangerous items. Beyond that, I ain't answering your fake wannabe a hero but cant hold a job at McDonald's with 6 hours of "SPOT" training line guy's question.
Keep applying your own personal standards to the screening process and you will, no doubt.
Opinions vary. Since you don’t know what the standards are, well we can all give due credit to yours.
Quote:
You can ask whatever you like. No one is required to answer you.
And that was MY point there PT. I can ask anything I like of anyone, but I cannot compel an answer, and I know it. Asking questions is not a violation of anyone’s rights, its not interrogation unless one makes the choice to assume such, and everyone has the same right to “not answer” that either you or I have. On or off of a checkpoint. In or out of a court (I know as an attorney you are frothing at the bit to split that hair, don’t bother). It’s the point I have been stating for several months now, yet you and every other individual out there have chosen to misinterpret what I have written to meet your need to argue with a TSO and show him up! Sad, very.
Unfortunately tsadude1 your brethren in Chicago ORD disagree with you. The aviation security inspector was not fired, did not have to pay for the damage/inspection of the temperature probes (I'd estimate about 3 labors hours/probe to remove/inspect/replace or repair per aircraft x 9 aircraft), and the TSA decided that the best course of action after the media got a hold of it, was to threaten American Eagle with a $175k fine.
Irresponsible behavior is the aviation security inspector deliberately damaging the temperature probes in spite of the "NO STEP" stenciled right next to each one of them. Unaccountability is the TSA deciding to fine American Eagle $175k for the audacity of telling the press about it.
Actually a very good example of how TSA treats the private property of others.
The most ironic thing about this is that the TSA inspector course is at the Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center
Programs: CO Gold, BD Gold, hotwire elite, SPG dirt, PWP General Secretary
Posts: 14,119
Quote:
Originally Posted by TSORon
And that was MY point there PT. I can ask anything I like of anyone, but I cannot compel an answer, and I know it. Asking questions is not a violation of anyone’s rights, its not interrogation unless one makes the choice to assume such, and everyone has the same right to “not answer” that either you or I have. On or off of a checkpoint. In or out of a court (I know as an attorney you are frothing at the bit to split that hair, don’t bother). It’s the point I have been stating for several months now, yet you and every other individual out there have chosen to misinterpret what I have written to meet your need to argue with a TSO and show him up! Sad, very.
I can ask anything I like of anyone, but I cannot compel an answer, and I know it. Asking questions is not a violation of anyone’s rights, its not interrogation unless one makes the choice to assume such, and everyone has the same right to “not answer” that either you or I have.
Some honest questions here, which all come back to the question of implied coercion.
For the sake of argument here, let's assume it's you and I at a checkpoint (so I can use common pronouns below).
1. If you ask me a question, and I refuse to answer the question, can my refusal to answer the question be held against me during the screening process? That certainly seems to be what happened in the OP, where the TSO summoned a LEO after the passenger never answered the TSO's questions regarding the money.
2. Suppose this discussion is occurring while you are holding my bag. I believe you, and others, have said that a passenger cannot arbitrarily give up the screening process; once I voluntarily submit my bags for screening, I cannot access them until the TSOs screening them complete their work. Now, you ask me a question about my possessions, which you are holding and I cannot touch. Can my silence be used against me? Does my refusal to answer your question about the item you're holding have any effect on how you will proceed to clear or deny the item?
3. Suppose this discussion is occurring in a private screening area (either at your suggestion or mine). Does my refusal to answer your question have an effect on how you will complete the screening process? Keep in mind that, again, you will not permit me to touch my possessions, and that you and I are in a room which is unfamiliar to me -- in fact, I may not even know how to exit the room and return to the screening area.
Location: Newport Beach, California, USA (Recently of San Francisco)
Programs: UA-1P,SPG-Gold,Marriott-Silver
Posts: 10,337
Quote:
Originally Posted by TSORon
Opinions vary. Since you don’t know what the standards are, well we can all give due credit to yours.
Opinions vary, but only one of us can offer an informed opinion as to the law. With regards to "standards," you keep posting what yours are, and that's all I've been responding to.
Quote:
And that was MY point there PT. I can ask anything I like of anyone, but I cannot compel an answer, and I know it.
Exactly. I've never said anything other than that. I'm glad we're in agreement.
And that's why I keep posting that no one should ever respond to any questions from a LEO or TSO, other than those of the innocuous, "how's the weather?" sort.
Quote:
Asking questions is not a violation of anyone’s rights,
I never said that it was. Requiring answers, however, is a violation of the 5th Amendment.
Quote:
its not interrogation unless one makes the choice to assume such
Again, that's incorrect. Any question related to your actual job, i.e. keeping weapons and explosives out of the sterile area, is, by definition, interrogation.
Quote:
and everyone has the same right to “not answer” that either you or I have. On or off of a checkpoint. In or out of a court (I know as an attorney you are frothing at the bit to split that hair, don’t bother).
I don't "froth," nor do I disagree.
Quote:
It’s the point I have been stating for several months now, yet you and every other individual out there have chosen to misinterpret what I have written to meet your need to argue with a TSO and show him up! Sad, very.
In your most recent point on the subject you said this:
"Asking a question "may" be considered to be interrogation, but only if one chooses to think of it as such."
That is incorrect as a matter of law. Any question asked by a state actor in a coercive situation is interrogation and no response is required.
What you and many TSOs do not seem to understand is that, when it comes to Constitutional rights, the law is rigid and unyielding. And this is for a reason: TSA routinely pushes the envelope of constitutional protections (and frequently exceeds it) in the name of security. The Constitution of this country does not permit the compromise of personal liberty in the name of security and, frankly, if that means a plane blows up rather than the government establishing itself as a tyrant in contravention of the Constitution, THAT is what our constitutional government requires.
Location: Newport Beach, California, USA (Recently of San Francisco)
Programs: UA-1P,SPG-Gold,Marriott-Silver
Posts: 10,337
Quote:
Originally Posted by jkhuggins
Some honest questions here, which all come back to the question of implied coercion.
For the sake of argument here, let's assume it's you and I at a checkpoint (so I can use common pronouns below).
1. If you ask me a question, and I refuse to answer the question, can my refusal to answer the question be held against me during the screening process?
I'm going to re-frame your question. "Can the refusal to answer a TSO's question constitute probably cause for a further inspection after a passenger has been cleared for the possession of weapons or explosives?" The answer is, "no." There are occasions when refusal to answer a LEO's questions may give rise to a "reasonable suspicion," sufficient to permit stopping you and further investigation. However, a TSO may do one thing and one thing only: conduct a limited administrative search for the purpose of ascertaining that a passenger does not have weapons or explosives in his possession.
Quote:
That certainly seems to be what happened in the OP, where the TSO summoned a LEO after the passenger never answered the TSO's questions regarding the money.
That's correct. A TSO can say anything he wants to a LEO. It's the LEO's determination whether or not a reasonable suspicion exists sufficient to warrant further investigation.
Quote:
2. Suppose this discussion is occurring while you are holding my bag. I believe you, and others, have said that a passenger cannot arbitrarily give up the screening process; once I voluntarily submit my bags for screening, I cannot access them until the TSOs screening them complete their work. Now, you ask me a question about my possessions, which you are holding and I cannot touch. Can my silence be used against me?
Not as evidence of wrong-doing. For example, suppose the TSO construes your silence as a tacit admission that there is something dangerous in the bag and shouts to a TSO, "I think he has a bomb!" The TSO drawns down on you and shoots you in the leg. When you sue the TSO and the LEO for the tort, the fact that you refused to answer the TSO's questions cannot be used to justify the shooting.
The TSO can decide to refer you to a LEO -- when he does so, he's acting as any private citizen. However, if the LEO says, "Why won't you answer his questions?" the response should be, "Because I don't have to." And that, in and of itself, should not, in and of itself, provide reasonable suspicion to cause the LEO to investigate further. Moreover, if the TSO says something like, "I'm not turning this bag back to you unless you answer my questions," YOU should call over a LEO and say that you'd like to press charges against the TSO for theft.
Quote:
Does my refusal to answer your question about the item you're holding have any effect on how you will proceed to clear or deny the item?
I believe Bart has already answered this (albeit reluctantly). His answer was, in effect, that there is nothing you can say that will cause him to clear an item about which he has suspicions.
Quote:
3. Suppose this discussion is occurring in a private screening area (either at your suggestion or mine). Does my refusal to answer your question have an effect on how you will complete the screening process? Keep in mind that, again, you will not permit me to touch my possessions, and that you and I are in a room which is unfamiliar to me -- in fact, I may not even know how to exit the room and return to the screening area.
You seem to be confusing the legal standards of reasonable suspicion and probable cause with the administrative search performed by a TSO. Neither standard applies. The sole function of a TSO is to ensure that passengers don't have in their possession weapons or explosives. ANYTHING else is presumptively unconstitutional and therefore illegal. A TSO who abuses SOP by, for example, engaging in retaliatory secondaries is acting illegally. A TSO who asks you ANY questions is acting outside the scope of the administrative search, given that there are no possible questions, or answers, that further the limited scope of the process.
Some honest questions here, which all come back to the question of implied coercion.
For the sake of argument here, let's assume it's you and I at a checkpoint (so I can use common pronouns below).
1. If you ask me a question, and I refuse to answer the question, can my refusal to answer the question be held against me during the screening process? That certainly seems to be what happened in the OP, where the TSO summoned a LEO after the passenger never answered the TSO's questions regarding the money.
Its not a criminal proceeding or investigation, I can’t hold anything against you at all. Eye color, shoes, anything. Can I pass you along for secondary screening? Sure I can, and be fully justified in doing so. You are a suspicious character, I can pass along anyone I like to secondary screening based on nothing more than gut feeling, or nothing at all. I can also pass anyone, for the same reasons, or no reason. Its all within the boundries of procedure. Because I’m not doing anything to you that I wont do to the next guy or gal, for any reason, or none.
Quote:
2. Suppose this discussion is occurring while you are holding my bag. I believe you, and others, have said that a passenger cannot arbitrarily give up the screening process; once I voluntarily submit my bags for screening, I cannot access them until the TSOs screening them complete their work. Now, you ask me a question about my possessions, which you are holding and I cannot touch. Can my silence be used against me? Does my refusal to answer your question about the item you're holding have any effect on how you will proceed to clear or deny the item?
Same answer as above. Its not a criminal proceeding or investigation, I can’t hold anything against you at all. I can refuse to allow your property that I have concerns with into the sterile area (actually, a supervisor can, I’m not going to deal with a reluctant passenger, that’s what they get paid for).
Here is the way it works. If we are unable to clear an item in someone’s property it will not be allowed into the sterile area. You might be able to go, but that item cant. Is that holding your silence against you? Nope. Not one bit.
Quote:
3. Suppose this discussion is occurring in a private screening area (either at your suggestion or mine). Does my refusal to answer your question have an effect on how you will complete the screening process? Keep in mind that, again, you will not permit me to touch my possessions, and that you and I are in a room which is unfamiliar to me -- in fact, I may not even know how to exit the room and return to the screening area.
Usually, you go out the same way you went in. My dog can do that, you shouldn’t have any problems. As for your question, Its not a criminal proceeding or investigation, I can’t hold anything against you at all. I can refuse to allow your property that I have concerns with into the sterile area (actually, a supervisor can, I’m not going to deal with a reluctant passenger, again that’s what they get paid for). Its still not holding your silence against you.
Everything in life has consequences, either good or bad. Failing/refusing to answer a legitimate question has its consequences. You call the tune, you pay the piper.
Location: Newport Beach, California, USA (Recently of San Francisco)
Programs: UA-1P,SPG-Gold,Marriott-Silver
Posts: 10,337
Quote:
Originally Posted by TSORon
Everything in life has consequences, either good or bad. Failing/refusing to answer a legitimate question has its consequences. You call the tune, you pay the piper.
I am curious. Could you give me an example of what you consider to be a "legitimate question" that you might ask as part of the administrative search procedure?
Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitutiion
"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
Oh, and BTW, SWING AND A MISS.
Any attorney that uses that single quote to support their case has lost that case. Which of course causes me to question your claim.
Location: Newport Beach, California, USA (Recently of San Francisco)
Programs: UA-1P,SPG-Gold,Marriott-Silver
Posts: 10,337
Quote:
Originally Posted by TSORon
Oh, and BTW, SWING AND A MISS.
Any attorney that uses that single quote to support their case has lost that case. Which of course causes me to question your claim.
You're really quite a piece of work.
1. The Constitution is the supreme source of law in the U.S.
2. There is no, "case." This is such a basic principle of Constitutional law that anyone remotely familiar with the Constitution would know that the Fifth Amendment covers it.
3. You want a brief? PM me with your address and I'll send you an engagement letter. When your retainer check clears, I'll be happy to supply as much "supporting" information as you want.
Oh, and also:
4. Notwithstanding your rather silly effort to deflect the issue, you were, are, and remain wrong, as the Fifth Amendment clearly indicates.
In your most recent point on the subject you said this:
"Asking a question "may" be considered to be interrogation, but only if one chooses to think of it as such."
That is incorrect as a matter of law. Any question asked by a state actor in a coercive situation is interrogation and no response is required.
“coercive situation” on the checkpoint is an opinion. One that has not yet reached a court (that I am aware of). And I dearly hope it never does. As should you. Can you imagine the changes in policy that the TSA would have to institute to make up for the ability to ask questions of the passengers? Draconian, oppressive, and every bit of it legal. Be careful what you ask for…
1. The Constitution is the supreme source of law in the U.S.
Quite. But it is not the only law, it is the basis for our laws. It itself is based on other laws, laws from other nations and other times. I asked you to be specific, you couldn’t. Sorry, such a broad brush as the 5th amendment is not even close to specific. Support your case counselor, or admit you cant.
Quote:
3. You want a brief? PM me with your address and I'll send you an engagement letter. When your retainer check clears, I'll be happy to supply as much "supporting" information as you want.
Sorry, but after all that I am concerned about your claims of being an attorney.
Quote:
Oh, and also:
4. Notwithstanding your rather silly effort to deflect the issue, you were, are, and remain wrong, as the Fifth Amendment clearly indicates.
The 5th amendment indicates MANY things, and if that is all you can bring to the table you need to go back to class.
Believe me though, the idiot who climbed up the aircraft using the pitot probe should be FIRED.
