Go Back  FlyerTalk Forums > Travel&Dining > Travel Safety/Security > Checkpoints and Borders Policy Debate
Reload this Page >

Court says TSA engaged in unlawful search. (Fofana)

Court says TSA engaged in unlawful search. (Fofana)

Old Jun 25, 2009, 8:49 am
  #151  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: USA
Posts: 1,439
Bart, I don't mean to be antagonistic. I'm very curious, though, why something that looks like it might indicate possession of a controlled substance holds so much more weight than other things that look like they might indicate other types of wrongdoing, so I provide these other examples to make people think about how many "possibly suspicious" things a TSA agent is likely to see while searching us. Most people don't think that the other examples warrant holding someone's belongings while law enforcement is summoned, but because of American "drug war" craze (which thankfully, may be winding down now that Gil Kerlikowske is director of ONDCP), they think it's appropriate to do so when something that looks like it might be a controlled substance is found while searching for dangerous items.
pmocek is offline  
Old Jun 25, 2009, 8:55 am
  #152  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: The Sunshine State
Programs: Deltaworst Peon Level, TSA "Layer 21 Club", NW WP RIP
Posts: 11,370
Originally Posted by Boggie Dog
So your willing to give TSO's power to detain? I am not.
No way. But what they are currently doing is in effect detaining. After determining no threat to aviation, they hold your bag and will not let you go until LEO gets there. Sounds like detaining to me. Does the TSO offer the choice "I have called LEO. If you choose not to fly today, you can gather your bags and exit this checkpoint before LEO gets here. Once in the outer airport the LEO will have no grounds to search you. Do you wish to leave?"

Originally Posted by Boggie Dog
If a person hangs out, past or present, with people who use drugs then I would question that persons qualifications to hold any kind of security clearance.
So that explains why the country is so messd up the last 17 years. Clinton, Bush and Obama all had their security clearance revoked. Must be a darn hard job being President without a security clearance.
Flaflyer is offline  
Old Jun 25, 2009, 9:09 am
  #153  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: DFW
Posts: 28,010
Originally Posted by Flaflyer
No way. But what they are currently doing is in effect detaining. After determining no threat to aviation, they hold your bag and will not let you go until LEO gets there. Sounds like detaining to me. Does the TSO offer the choice "I have called LEO. If you choose not to fly today, you can gather your bags and exit this checkpoint before LEO gets here. Once in the outer airport the LEO will have no grounds to search you. Do you wish to leave?"



So that explains why the country is so messd up the last 17 years. Clinton, Bush and Obama all had their security clearance revoked. Must be a darn hard job being President without a security clearance.
The standards for being in government have certainly been lowered as evidenced by your examples.

Doesn't make it right.

And if those guys are on top of the heap what remains to fill the ranks at TSA?
Boggie Dog is offline  
Old Jun 25, 2009, 9:13 am
  #154  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: USA
Posts: 1,439
Originally Posted by Boggie Dog
If a person hangs out, past or present, with people who use drugs then I would question that persons qualifications to hold any kind of security clearance.
Oh, come on. Who doesn't use drugs? Ibuprofin for a headache? Cup of coffee (caffeine) to wake up in the morning? Smoke (nicotine) break to calm down? Beer, wine, or cocktail (alcohol) to relax after work? Smoke a bowl or a joint (cannabis) to relax after work or before heading off on a hike in the wilderness (or safer, vaporize it)? Take some MDMA at a party with friends once in a long while? I know many, many, adults who use drugs -- both recreational and medicinal, legal in their present location and not -- responsibly. Very few people who use drugs, even drugs that our federal governement presently prohibits adults from possessing, use them in a problematic manner. Use of drugs, much less association with people who use them, has no bearing on one's qualifications to hold a security clearance.
pmocek is offline  
Old Jun 25, 2009, 9:27 am
  #155  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Finally back in Boston after escaping from New York
Posts: 13,643
Originally Posted by Bart
LOL. No such conspiracy exists, my friend.

I think it boils down to a much simpler, less flashy and more boring explanation: poor editing.

The SOP may make sense to those who wrote it, but the real test is to run it past a sample of officers at a few airports ranging from the major hubs to the small jerkwater towns to make sure they understand it.

Otherwise, it's just another PowerPoint Ranger assault.
Believe it or not, it may even be simpler than that. It seems to me that TSA "corporate" gives a lot of press to those who make "the big catch," whether it's a terrorist, someone with fake ID or drugs. I can understand why a TSO would potentially go over the line to make the big catch and reap whatever bounty, even if only some free publicity, comes with it.

Originally Posted by PhoenixRev

Next month, my spouse and I are headed to Vegas for a much needed bit of R&R. I will have lots of cash on me because I don't want to pay the outrageous fees in the casinos nor have to hunt down an ATM every time I want some cash.
Should you, for some bizarre reason, feel like hanging with some FTers, check out the Las Vegas forum. There are a couple of threads about get-togethers in July.

Mike
mikeef is offline  
Old Jun 25, 2009, 9:41 am
  #156  
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Florida
Posts: 3,006
Originally Posted by pmocek
Use of drugs, much less association with people who use them, has no bearing on one's qualifications to hold a security clearance.
Sure it does, if you are willing to break the law for mere recreation why wouldn't you break the law for profit?
Trollkiller is offline  
Old Jun 25, 2009, 9:51 am
  #157  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: USA
Posts: 1,439
Originally Posted by Trollkiller
Originally Posted by pmocek
Use of drugs, much less association with people who use them, has no bearing on one's qualifications to hold a security clearance.
Sure it does, if you are willing to break the law for mere recreation why wouldn't you break the law for profit?
First, this wasn't about breaking the law, it was about using drugs (something that almost everyone does) or associating with people who use drugs. The former is sometimes illegal; the latter is not. I still maintain that neither has any bearing on one's qualifications to hold a security clearance.

I don't know how to answer your question. Whether or not someone would use recreation as justification for unlawful activity seems to me to have no bearing on whether he would use profit as justification for unlawful activity (and neither seems relevant to the discussion of drug use and security clearances). Could you please rephrase?
pmocek is offline  
Old Jun 25, 2009, 10:13 am
  #158  
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 1,972
Originally Posted by Bart
Agreed. That's why it's referred to the LEO: a person who has the training, authority and jurisdiction to determine if it meets the legal threshold for criminal investigation.
The constitutional problem, though, is that the referral to the LEO itself is overstepping the bounds of the administrative search. Once you've verified that no prohibited objects exist, you must be done. The only exception is if you've encountered evidence of a crime, not something that just might be a crime.

As I said earlier, where does this slippery slope end? By your logic, a TSO would be permitted to make an LEO referral because there was an iPod since it's possible that it contains illegally-downloaded material.
RichardKenner is offline  
Old Jun 25, 2009, 10:17 am
  #159  
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 1,972
Originally Posted by Bart
I find it difficult to believe that the average person would not consider a baggie full of white powdery substance concealed inside the electronics compartment of a DVD player as something that ought to be reported to a supervisor and/or LEO.
I'm probably willing to accept that. But do you agree that if the same baggie were found just lying in the bag that it must not be reported?
RichardKenner is offline  
Old Jun 25, 2009, 10:21 am
  #160  
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 1,972
Originally Posted by Bart
However, if the item in question is, for example, found concealed inside of a device or appears to be something illegal, then the appropriate thing to do is to turn it over to an LEO. (emphasis added)
If I see an iPod in somebody's bag, it's more likely than not that it contains illegally-downloaded material. Hence, any iPod "appears to be something illegal". If this isn't the case, then why is it appropriate to turn over a "baggie with a white substance"? I'd say that the probability that each are evidence of violations of the law are pretty close.
RichardKenner is offline  
Old Jun 25, 2009, 10:24 am
  #161  
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 1,972
Originally Posted by Trollkiller
Sure it does, if you are willing to break the law for mere recreation why wouldn't you break the law for profit?
One would hope that the reason why people who have classified information don't divulge it is not merely because it's against the law, but because they feel that it's morally wrong. No such exists for breaking drug laws in minor ways.
RichardKenner is offline  
Old Jun 25, 2009, 10:32 am
  #162  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: DFW
Posts: 28,010
Originally Posted by pmocek
Oh, come on. Who doesn't use drugs? Ibuprofin for a headache? Cup of coffee (caffeine) to wake up in the morning? Smoke (nicotine) break to calm down? Beer, wine, or cocktail (alcohol) to relax after work? Smoke a bowl or a joint (cannabis) to relax after work or before heading off on a hike in the wilderness (or safer, vaporize it)? Take some MDMA at a party with friends once in a long while? I know many, many, adults who use drugs -- both recreational and medicinal, legal in their present location and not -- responsibly. Very few people who use drugs, even drugs that our federal governement presently prohibits adults from possessing, use them in a problematic manner. Use of drugs, much less association with people who use them, has no bearing on one's qualifications to hold a security clearance.

You mixing legal items with some that are illegal in all cases. Even some legal items become illegal when used improperly such as driving under the influence.

When a person applies for a security clearance part of the process deals with the persons integrity. The use of illegal drugs or even close association with others who use illegal drugs brings that persons integrity into questions.
A person with a history of drug use should get a hard look before any clearance is granted.

I don't know who you hang out with but people I know do not use illegal drugs. If they did and I became aware of that fact I would report that to the police.
Boggie Dog is offline  
Old Jun 25, 2009, 2:19 pm
  #163  
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: various cities in the USofA: NYC, BWI, IAH, ORD, CVG, NYC
Programs: Former UA 1K, National Exec. Elite
Posts: 5,485
Originally Posted by Boggie Dog
I don't know who you hang out with but people I know do not use illegal drugs. If they did and I became aware of that fact I would report that to the police.
Perhaps that's why they don't tell you about their use of drugs.

Unless you know very few people, I highly doubt that you don't associate with people who use drugs illegally. Many people who don't think they "do illegal drugs" probably, on occasion, do drugs illegally. For example, taking 1 more Percocet than the prescription dictates: that's illegal drug use. Getting one from a friend or spouse, that's illegal drug use.
ralfp is offline  
Old Jun 25, 2009, 2:27 pm
  #164  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Miami, FL
Programs: AA EXP/Marriott Plat/Hertz PC
Posts: 12,724
Originally Posted by ralfp
Perhaps that's why they don't tell you about their use of drugs.

Unless you know very few people, I highly doubt that you don't associate with people who use drugs illegally. Many people who don't think they "do illegal drugs" probably, on occasion, do drugs illegally. For example, taking 1 more Percocet than the prescription dictates: that's illegal drug use. Getting one from a friend or spouse, that's illegal drug use.
It's worse than that. I read someplace that it is against Federal law to store prescription medicine in any container other than the container it came in. If you have a daily pill dispenser you are an illegal drug user.
whirledtraveler is offline  
Old Jun 25, 2009, 2:49 pm
  #165  
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: various cities in the USofA: NYC, BWI, IAH, ORD, CVG, NYC
Programs: Former UA 1K, National Exec. Elite
Posts: 5,485
Originally Posted by whirledtraveler
It's worse than that. I read someplace that it is against Federal law to store prescription medicine in any container other than the container it came in. If you have a daily pill dispenser you are an illegal drug user.
It's even worse than that in FL: a valid prescription for a controlled substance is not a defense against possessing said controlled substance and cannot be used as a defense at trial. The guy in question may have "won" in the end, but he lost his homes, car, business, and two+ years of his life.

"Under the law, simply possessing the quantity of pills he had constitutes trafficking."

So I guess if a TSA employee sees a C-II or C-III in FL, it's evidence of a crime even if the pills are in a prescription bottle.

Last edited by ralfp; Jun 25, 2009 at 3:47 pm Reason: trial, not trail
ralfp is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Manage Preferences - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.