We're not discussing discovery of a known-illegal substance, but one that a TSO suspects of being illegal. He or she must then either give the passenger the benefit of the doubt and move on to searching for dangerous items, or stop performing searches for dangerous items and begin an investigation into possible possession of illegal substance, whether that involves further examination of the item or holding it while waiting for outside assistance.
I understand that you believe your internal operating procedures dictate that you do so in such circumstances. Please explain how such a lull in searching for dangerous items does anything for air travel safety but decrease it. Please explain how it is related to accomplishment of TSA's duties.
I think you misunderstood me. We're discussing the hypothetical situation in which you have already determined that the item is not a weapon, explosive, or incendiary, but suspect that it may be a controlled substance. The item is no longer a threat.
That's the case with most black market business transactions. You're making the case for an end to drug prohibition. That would be a wise change in U.S. policy, likely resulting in improvements similar to those we experienced when we ended prohibition of alcohol.
Besides, we could say the same of someone jaywalking outside the terminal. Should TSO's stop searching people to go out and investigate jaywalking if they look out the window and see it happening? In that case, they could be almost positive that someone had done wrong, unlike with a bag of white powder, which requires much more than visual observation of the situation in order to determine if wrongdoing has occurred.
So would going outside to stop jaywalkers. And we could say the same of having every person who comes near the terminal referred to law enforcement for questioning. Each would bring people who may be carrying substances that are presently illegal for them to possess into contact with a law enforcement officer.
In the United States, we're not allowed to stop all the good people in search of the few bad people, regardless of the fact that doing so would lead to finding bad people. Such is the price of freedom. Misunderstanding or disregard for this is one of the reasons TSA staff should not be performing law enforcement duties.
Luckily, the lull (at my airport and the others I have worked at) has been resolved in a decidedly short period of time (less than 2 minutes in each case), and has not resulted in much in the way of waiting. In most cases, if the TSO is needed to perform more searches or pat downs, etc, then the STSO can keep the item under control until it is resolved.
Resolving jaywalking is a bad comparison because the TSO has no assigned duties in that area pertaining to that particular act. We don't stop people to search specifically for anything other than threat items and respond if something suspected of being illegal is found while doing that. It is a totally different situation because we are not targeting the suspected illegal substance, we are targeting the possible threat. We do not perform LEO duties, we simply notify them in certain situations.
Programs: CO Platinum, SPG Platinum, HH Gold - whatever that's worth now :(
Posts: 12,493
Quote:
Originally Posted by gsoltso
True, but if the passenger terminates before the end of screening or resolution of items, it is a breach and will be dealt with as such. That means you will get quality time with johnny law.
It should only be a breach if the passenger terminates screening and enters the sterile area. If they terminate screening and state they are leaving the airport and leave the screening area, there should be no breach.
Either way, the passenger is free and clear until the police actually show up - which could be anywhere from a few moments to five minutes or more. When the police were called on me at SEA, I had more than ample time to gather my belongings and make it to the parking lot before anyone actually arrived at the checkpoint.
Bottom line, there is nothing you can do to physically stop or restrain a passenger.
__________________ Rich and 50 is the same as middle-class and 30
Luckily, the lull (at my airport and the others I have worked at) has been resolved in a decidedly short period of time (less than 2 minutes in each case)
Please explain how that affects air travel safety.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gsoltso
Resolving jaywalking is a bad comparison because the TSO has no assigned duties in that area pertaining to that particular act.
Assigned duties are irrelevant, here, other than to say that some of the duties you have been assigned by your managers accomplish nothing towards TSA's duty to search for weapons, explosives, and incendiaries. How is stopping your searches for those things you're assigned to find in order to investigate possible possession of controlled substance any more appropriate than stopping your searches for those things you're assigned to find in order to investigate jaywalking? Both are illegal and sometimes dangerous. You used those as justification for the controlled substance investigation. Either would bring someone who may have controlled substances in contact with a law enforcement officer. You used that as justification for a controlled substance investigation. I think it's a great comparison.
What if you saw a pet but no license for it? What if you saw car keys on someone who doesn't look old enough to drive? What if you saw a magazine with pictures of petite naked people who are about 17.5 - 18.5 years old? What if you saw a passport and a driver license with the same picture but different names? Many things you come across might indicate wrongdoing, might not indicate wrongdoing, and clearly do not indicate a threat to air travel safety. Why not give the person the benefit of the doubt in those cases and continue with your duty to keep weapons, incendiaries, and explosives off airplanes?
Why do you (TSA, not you personally) draw the line at possession of controlled substances instead of stopping to investigate everything that might indicate wrongdoing? You have no more legal or ethical obligation to investigate possible possession of controlled substance than possible possession of a number of other unlawful activities.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gsoltso
We don't stop people to search specifically for anything other than threat items and respond if something suspected of being illegal is found while doing that.
It seems that after you've concluded your search for weapons, explosives, and incendiaries, you do stop people who would otherwise go on about their business in order to investigate the possibility that they are in possession of controlled substances. At that time, you are very specifically investigating something other than "threat items".
Quote:
Originally Posted by gsoltso
It is a totally different situation because we are not targeting the suspected illegal substance, we are targeting the possible threat.
That's not the case once you have determined that the item is not a threat. At that point, it's just a bag of white stuff. You can assume that it's sugar and move on with searching for dangerous items, or you can begin an investigation into possible possession of controlled substance. Please explain how such investigation is related to accomplishment of TSA's duties.
When the police were called on me at SEA, I had more than ample time to gather my belongings and make it to the parking lot before anyone actually arrived at the checkpoint.
Have you posted more about that here? I'd like to read about it.
Programs: CO Platinum, SPG Platinum, HH Gold - whatever that's worth now :(
Posts: 12,493
Quote:
Originally Posted by pmocek
Have you posted more about that here? I'd like to read about it.
It happened last year and was the precursor for my acquiring a Hawai'i drivers license with a mailbox center as my address for privacy.
In a nutshell, the doofus ID checker didn't like my older Florida DL and called a supervisor who turned out to be a nasty b***. When I argued with her and tried to snatch back my DL before she could copy down all my information, she called the police and I forced her to call the Alaska Air GSC (who turned out to be useless).
The police came, verified my DL and watched as I continued escalating through the TSA screening manager and on-duty terminal manager forcing them to provide written documentation of how my personal information would be used.
They took a good 5 minutes to show up, during which I had the pleasure of engaging said TSA b*** in a death stare contest while I blocked her from copying down certain info from my DL includeding my SSN number (it was issued in the 80s).
__________________ Rich and 50 is the same as middle-class and 30
Please explain how that affects air travel safety.
[There is no effect that I can see]
Assigned duties are irrelevant, here, other than to say that some of the duties you have been assigned by your managers accomplish nothing towards TSA's duty to search for weapons, explosives, and incendiaries. How is stopping your searches for those things you're assigned to find in order to investigate possible possession of controlled substance any more appropriate than stopping your searches for those things you're assigned to find in order to investigate jaywalking? Both are illegal and sometimes dangerous. You used those as justification for the controlled substance investigation. Either would bring someone who may have controlled substances in contact with a law enforcement officer. You used that as justification for a controlled substance investigation. I think it's a great comparison.
[I don't investigate, I refer up if there is a question. That is what SOP says to do and it is what I do. The suspected substance is found while clearing the bag of a threat, it is referred up. That is not investigation, that is simply referring it to the next step to resolve any questions, there is a difference. I do not have the authroity to conduct an investigation into the items.]
What if you saw a pet but no license for it? What if you saw car keys on someone who doesn't look old enough to drive? What if you saw a magazine with pictures of petite naked people who are about 17.5 - 18.5 years old? What if you saw a passport and a driver license with the same picture but different names? Many things you come across might indicate wrongdoing, might not indicate wrongdoing, and clearly do not indicate a threat to air travel safety. Why not give the person the benefit of the doubt in those cases and continue with your duty to keep weapons, incendiaries, and explosives off airplanes?
[Most things that I see in the normal course of life that are illegal,, or have a good possibility of being illegal, I question. By the line of reasoning you are using here, I should not venture to report on an AMBER alert that has been distributed, I should not report two guys fighting in the concourse area to the LEO, I should not report someone breaking into an office at the airport because it is all outside the scope of my assigned duties to look for Boom, Bang or Fuego. There are many cooperative guidelines that the Federal Govenrment uses with local LEOs and fed employees, this is simply an example of that cooperation. As long as the item is found while looking for another item that could be a threat, then we are to report it.]
Why do you (TSA, not you personally) draw the line at possession of controlled substances instead of stopping to investigate everything that might indicate wrongdoing? You have no more legal or ethical obligation to investigate possible possession of controlled substance than possible possession of a number of other unlawful activities.
[That I can offer no answer on, other than we are not told to do anything of that nature.]
It seems that after you've concluded your search for weapons, explosives, and incendiaries, you do stop people who would otherwise go on about their business in order to investigate the possibility that they are in possession of controlled substances. At that time, you are very specifically investigating something other than "threat items".
[We don't do investigations, we refer up to LEO. All we do is notice the item, tentatively determine if it closely resembles an illegal substance, then call the STSO/LEO. No more to it than that.]
That's not the case once you have determined that the item is not a threat. At that point, it's just a bag of white stuff. You can assume that it's sugar and move on with searching for dangerous items, or you can begin an investigation into possible possession of controlled substance. Please explain how such investigation is related to accomplishment of TSA's duties.
[I really don't know what else to say to you Phil, we just follow the SOP and cooperate the way the agency has indicated. There is no real investigation on our end, that is LEOs job. It really is as simple as that, we find the item, it looks like a, b, or c, we contact the STSO, the STSO contacts the LEO.]
Three people were indicted today following their arrest last week in connection with what authorities say is the largest drug seizure at Seattle-Tacoma International Airport. According to the Port of Seattle, port police arrested the three as they were awaiting a flight to Alaska and seized 11 kilograms of cocaine from their checked luggage.
On Sept. 30, the suspects checked their bags before boarding a flight to Alaska. Transportation Security Administration officers discovered five kilograms of cocaine in one bag during a routine x-ray and notified Port of Seattle Police.
The bag owner was located at the departure gate and, with the help of airline personnel, was determined to be traveling with other companions. Police also searched two more bags and found an additional six kilograms of cocaine.
The suspects have been indicted in U.S. District Court for conspiracy to distribute cocaine, according to the port. The penalty is a mandatory minimum of 10 years to life in prison and up to a $4 million fine.
"Last week's seizure and arrests represent good police work, and I'm very proud of the officers and detectives who participated," said Port Police Chief Colleen Wilson. "I'm also grateful for the ongoing partnership with our colleagues at the TSA."
This wouldn't have happened if we hadn't allowed TSA to search our belongings without warrant, or if they were forced to constrain their searches to dangerous items. We've been prosecuting people for possession of substances our federal government says we shouldn't have for decades, and it's had zero measurable effect on the availability of those substances or on people's use of them. It has cost billions of dollars and resulted in many, many, deaths and otherwise ruined lives. When will we learn that prohibition causes more problems than it solves?
