Court says TSA engaged in unlawful search. (Fofana)
#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.
#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
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.
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.
#153
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: DFW
Posts: 28,010
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.
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.
Doesn't make it right.
And if those guys are on top of the heap what remains to fill the ranks at TSA?
#154
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: USA
Posts: 1,439
#155
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Finally back in Boston after escaping from New York
Posts: 13,643
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.
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.
Mike
#156
Original Poster
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Florida
Posts: 3,006
#157
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: USA
Posts: 1,439
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?
#158
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 1,972
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.
#159
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 1,972
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?
#160
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 1,972
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.
#161
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 1,972
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.
#162
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: DFW
Posts: 28,010
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.
#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
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.
#164
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Miami, FL
Programs: AA EXP/Marriott Plat/Hertz PC
Posts: 12,724
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.
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.
#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
"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