Boggie Dog

But what exactly is the reason to detain a person based only on a call from TSA.

Again if the below passage is the standard then what is the basis of the detention?

Good Guy

There are so many variables to that question. You are looking for a black and white answer and I can't give you one.

Boggie Dog

Do you have to believe that the person has or is about to commit a crime?

If that is the case I don't see how TSA calling for police would in many cases meet that standard.

Seems the playing field is not fair and TSA/Police are engaging in conduct that is at best questionable. Shouldn't any doubt always go to the citizens benefit?

edit to add: if you can't tell me why you would stop a person how in heck could you tell a judge?

Wally Bird

That's why the requirement is actually a reasonable and articulable suspicion*. 99% of the time it'll never get as far as judge anyway.

* http://www.laaw.com/seizure_chart.htm

Boggie Dog

OK, but the responder can't articulate a suspicion when asked. Before the stop doesn't the reasonable suspicion have to be already developed?

eyecue

TSA does not, it is regulated to law enforcement only.

studentff

My bad, I should have written RS not PC. I knew better too.

But does someone calling a LEO seriously constitute RS that a crime has been or is likely to be committed? That's kind of scary. Have courts held that up?

If all the LEO has to do to justify RS is be summoned, and the TSA isn't required to articulate RS, mere suspicion, or anything to call a LEO, then that effectively creates a loophole for turning the TSA checkpoint into a NCIC dragnet.


What if the passenger refuses to present ID to the LEO, or refuses to answer questions as to his identity in states that don't require you to identify yourself? Does the LEO keep escalating (in the absense of any real RS or PC other than the summons from TSA) or back off? Sounds exactly like the situation that lead to Phil Mocek being arrested at the checkpoint.

Bearcat06

Never have.... They were just being idiots and never did anything to break the law.....and being a jerk/asshat isn't against the law.....


If TSA (and I say that because it's easier than saying First Line) called us to a Check point, there was obvisouly an issue. Per our SOP, we had to ID the person we were talking to and run them through NCIC/ALERTS to check for warrants and if they had any issues in their criminal history (like being violent towards Officers).

We did that on traffic stops, medical calls, and anything that requires me to show up......

Bearcat06

Got to remember, when a LEO comes to a checkpoint, we have no idea what is going on..... I want to know who I am talking to and if they have had any issues with the police in the past (like being violent....and yes, we get that from NCIC hits) and if they have warrants.....

I do that on dog bite calls, medical calls, traffic stops, domestics, etc.... I am called to the scene of something....

Yeap....courts have up held it.....



Me showing up is RS that something is a foot. Further, TSA only called us when they were having issues. They didn't call us for every little stupid thing.....


Not sure about other States, but in MO, you had to chat with me....and I never, ever had anyone not give me ID or talk with me..... Everyone wanted to get it over with and do what they need to do so they can fly.....

And yes, if, in my opinion ,TSA was at fault, I noted that in my report....... And yes, at least at MCI, if we were called to a checkpoint, we had to initiate a report.... Most Cops hate taking reports....so.... if they were being pinheads, it was duly noted...... And I would tell folks that I was noting what they told me in my report.....

Boggie Dog

Still sounds to me that you are running people without Reasonable Suspicion.

Is an "issue" reasonable suspicion?

On what evidence are you making such determinations?

If I am going through TSA screening and the screener karate chops my balls and a LEO is summoned are you going to run just me or both myself and the TSA employee through NCIC?

SWCPHX

What makes you think that a LEO needs reasonable suspicion to run anybody NCIC?

Wally Bird

A LEO needs reasonable and articulable suspicion before having any investigative interaction with a member of the public. Theoretically of course; in practice you are absolutely correct.

Doesn't make it right or legal.

SWCPHX

This is just patently incorrect. LEOs can run license plates on cars without reasonable suspicion, they can run checks on addresses for warrants without reasonable suspicion, they can perform all sorts of inquiries of CJIS without reasonable suspicion. What they do with the information and what actions they take after that are what's important.

Wally Bird

I'm talking face to face as in not a car, house or other inanimate object.

SWCPHX

And you're still incorrect. Are you aware that some municipalities require motel employees to collect names and ID of guests? Are you aware that the motel employees are then required to turn over that information to the local cops? What do you think the local cops do with it? Sit on it? Of course not, they have warrant squads that run those names and attempt to go find those people if something interesting comes up on a CJIS inquiry. Is there any reasonable suspicion involved other than being a guest at a motel that has been used in the past for prostitution or a known narcotics location? Nope, and it's perfectly legal.

I guess we can quibble on what your interpretation of an "investigative interaction" is.

Suppose a LEO is called to a checkpoint because a passenger was acting "strangely" talking to themselves, upset, whatever, no other information provided by the TSO. LEO shows up, passenger is long gone because knowing his/her rights they know that the TSO clerk can't detain them. Anyway, LEO shows up, passenger is gone, but ooops, left behind their wallet with an ID in it. Don't think that the LEO can't run the name and DOB through CJIS????